Guild icon
Official Helium Community
⸺ HIP-ARCHIVE-2 ⸺ / hip-80-simplifying-dao-utility-score
HIP Content: https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0080-simplifying-dao-utility-score.md Tracking Issues: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/599
Avatar
HIP 80: Simplifying the DAO Utility Score Author: @ferebee Start Date: 2023-03-29 Category: Economic, Technical Original HIP PR: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/597 Tracking Issue: https://github.com/helium/HIP/issues/599 Summary HIP-51 specifies the DAO Utility Score, which determines the distribution of HNT among all Helium subDAOs. Its purpose is to incentivize current and future subDAOs to grow the value of their services provided through the Helium DAO while also protecting the investment of the LoRa Hotspots that participated from the start to the launch of the Helium network of networks. As the implementation of HIP-70 has progressed, multiple theoretical and practical drawbacks of the DAO Utility Score as specified in HIP-51 have become apparent. They threaten the interests of the existing IOT and MOBILE subDAOs, possible future subDAOs, and the Helium DAO as a whole. To solve these problems, HIP-80 proposes a new, simplified DAO Utility Score, which is easier to understand and protects the interests of all participants. The new Score no longer considers the number of Hotspots and their onboarding fees but only the square root of DC Burn and the square root of delegated veHNT. Additionally, the IOT subDAO receives an explicit guarding factor to ensure its continued funding. Because of this, the onboarding fee is no longer relevant to the new Score and all subDAO onboarding fees are reduced universally to $5 per Hotspot. A Hotspot must burn an onboarding fee towards each subDAO in which it participates. Motivation The existing definition of DAO Utility Score as specified in HIP-51 is ambiguous and difficult to understand. Simplifying it will make it more approachable and reduce the probability of unintended consequences. In addition, certain intents of HIP-51 are not fully realized by the existing Score definition. On the one hand, due to an oversight in the implementation of HIP-53, no onboarding fees have ever been burned towards the MOBILE subDAO. Therefore, at launch, the DAO Utility Score of the MOBILE subDAO as defined in HIP-51 would be eclipsed by the IOT subDAO, so that much less HNT than intended would initially be distributed to the MOBILE subDAO. This could limit the growth of MOBILE, which is important to the further development of the Helium Flywheel, and, thus to IOT as well. On the other hand, calculations show that the IOT subDAO risks being marginalized by the MOBILE subDAO in the medium term under the existing Score if current trends continue. This could cause nearly all HNT to be distributed to the subDAO treasury of the MOBILE subDAO, which would run counter to the intent of HIP-51 and could limit the further development of IOT. This threatens the health of the Helium DAO as a whole, as IOT is expected to deliver a significant contribution to the Helium DAO over the longer term. With its V factor, the existing DAO Utility Score gives far more weight to the amount of veHNT delegated to a subDAO than to any other factor. This would enable a single large investor to favor a single subDAO disproportionately with a large veHNT delegation and would prioritize economic incentives for delegation while marginalizing the importance of network growth and utility. Finally, if a new DAO Utility Score can be defined that does not rely on the number of Hotspots in a subDAO and their onboarding fees, the onboarding fee itself loses most of its importance. New types of low-cost Hotspots have been proposed for both IOT and MOBILE. The traditional onboarding fee of $40 would make up a large portion of the retail cost of these Hotspots. Reducing the onboarding fee can significantly reduce their cost and encourage the adoption of these new devices, contributing to the success of both networks. Rendered View https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0080-simplifying-dao-utility-score.md
After discussions with the HIP-51 team, a new simplified calculation of the DAO Utility Score is presented that better aligns the interests of DAO participants.
HIP 80: Simplifying the DAO Utility Score Author: @ferebee Start Date: 2023-03-29 Category: Economic, Technical Original HIP PR: #597 Tracking Issue: #599 Summary HIP-51 specifies the DAO Utility S...
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
valerie pinned a message to this channel. 03/29/2023 8:30 AM
Avatar
reading as we speak, @ferebee what made you choose 50 as the floor and what is the current burn rate for IOT? or just post a source i have had a heck of a time finding it in the past (edited)
Avatar
Without onboarding fees there is no expenditure that stops subDAOs from leaving as they see fit once they have gamed the Helium DAO sufficiently.
Avatar
The Floor of 50 is intended to give IOT a “founder’s benefit”, as was promised in the discussions leading up to HIP-51. 50 is a bit arbitrary, but it works out so IOT is treated as if it were burning $75,000/month. The idea is that MOBILE should be able to pass that soon if it works out. IOT currently burns something around $1,500/month AFAIK. ( @rawrmaan is the expert on that AFAIK.) OTOH, IOT has 4+ years to reach $75,000. Otherwise, it has bigger problems.
Avatar
also will the 5$ onboard go toward the DC of the subdao? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Without onboarding fees there is no expenditure that stops subDAOs from leaving as they see fit once they have gamed the Helium DAO sufficiently.
I don’t see that as an important consideration. IOT needs to drop the fee for the $99 Hotspots that are already ready to go. capcom has hinted at $99 Hotspots for MOBILE using Wi-Fi, the same applies there. OTOH, if MOBILE is running on $5,000–$25,000 setups, the onboarding fee is irrelevant to the question of whether it will want to leave Helium DAO.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
also will the 5$ onboard go toward the DC of the subdao? (edited)
No, the onboarding fee is just a separate fee as it is now.
Avatar
IOT also burned a hefty amount of DC for onboarding that the rest isn’t going to so some “founder” benefits are reasonable
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t see that as an important consideration. IOT needs to drop the fee for the $99 Hotspots that are already ready to go. capcom has hinted at $99 Hotspots for MOBILE using Wi-Fi, the same applies there. OTOH, if MOBILE is running on $5,000–$25,000 setups, the onboarding fee is irrelevant to the question of whether it will want to leave Helium DAO.
I’m not just talking about MOBILE though as I expect them to act in good faith. There will hopefully be more subDAOs in the future and not all of them will be good actors
Avatar
We’ll slash them if they try to eff us. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I’m not just talking about MOBILE though as I expect them to act in good faith. There will hopefully be more subDAOs in the future and not all of them will be good actors
I think its actually better for them to have to "stake/bond" something that they can get back but must cover some % of there earnings (edited)
Avatar
The potential motivation for a subDAO to leave the DAO is something I’ve thought about. I don’t have an answer to that right now. HIP-51, 52, 53, 70, 76 all don’t address that. Everybody please discuss and propose a HIP for that, but it’s out of scope for HIP-80
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The potential motivation for a subDAO to leave the DAO is something I’ve thought about. I don’t have an answer to that right now. HIP-51, 52, 53, 70, 76 all don’t address that. Everybody please discuss and propose a HIP for that, but it’s out of scope for HIP-80
true but they are in orbit of each other
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
We’ll slash them if they try to eff us. (edited)
There might be nothing left to slash
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The potential motivation for a subDAO to leave the DAO is something I’ve thought about. I don’t have an answer to that right now. HIP-51, 52, 53, 70, 76 all don’t address that. Everybody please discuss and propose a HIP for that, but it’s out of scope for HIP-80
Well, not really, since you essentially incentivize not having an onboarding fee with this HIP
Avatar
🚨 NOTE: @rawrmaan and @JMF contributed to this HIP. JMF notably proposed taking the square root of veHNT, an important consideration to prevent a whale from slamming the Utility Score against a wall. They are coauthors and will be listed as such in an update. Just didn’t get that sorted over the weekend.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Well, not really, since you essentially incentivize not having an onboarding fee with this HIP
well its still 5$s
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Well, not really, since you essentially incentivize not having an onboarding fee with this HIP
All subDAOs must use $5. The only remaining purpose of the fee is to protect Helium DAO from spam.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
All subDAOs must use $5. The only remaining purpose of the fee is to protect Helium DAO from spam.
It has some implications but I’ll stick to on topic here coolcry
Avatar
The Helium DAO could and probably should switch that to a minimum of $5 with each subDAO having flex from there. It effectively gives the Helium DAO the flexibility in the future. (edited)
valerie pinned a message to this channel. 03/29/2023 8:46 AM
Avatar
OFC we could make it a minimum. OTOH there will be other fees in some cases, some external to the Helium DAO, such as paying to have an outdoor 5G installation approved, or LoRa location assert. subDAOs have free rein there anyway.
Avatar
A subDAO has no incentive to set those fees (edited)
Avatar
My reading of HIP-51 is that the DAOs intent is to let subDAOs do whatever they want in that respect, subject to the general provision that any subDAO attempting to game HNT distribution may have its HNT reserves slashed by DAO governance.
Avatar
If we operate under the assumption that more gateways is better for a subDAO their onboarding fees should be as low as possible since it is essentially waste now that it doesn’t help the utility score.
08:54
Maybe the simplicity that this HIP proposes is better after all 🤷
🥰 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Maybe the simplicity that this HIP proposes is better after all 🤷
I think that a future hip does need to happen that makes new subdao's have skin in the game, that can scale with success just a thought but I do tend to agree that the simpler the better
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think that a future hip does need to happen that makes new subdao's have skin in the game, that can scale with success just a thought but I do tend to agree that the simpler the better
I have no quarrel with that at all, quite the contrary. Go start writing! 🙃
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 9:34 AM
I’m sorry but the LoRa hotspots earned 100% of the HNT for almost 4 years. If there is no data transfer yet why should we hold back another network that does burn HNT?
👆 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 9:45 AM
If there’s more DC burn, the value of the smaller number of HNT should be higher so it’ll balance itself out.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m sorry but the LoRa hotspots earned 100% of the HNT for almost 4 years. If there is no data transfer yet why should we hold back another network that does burn HNT?
The question you're asking is not a change in this HIP. It's functionally the same as HIP 51. This protection was widely voted for by the community
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 9:47 AM
Okay but we all agree HIP-51 did a poor job of defining value for each subDAO so we can hide behind “well HIP-51 was that way” for some pieces and not others (edited)
09:50
Especially the piece that we are removing
Avatar
Here's a draft model showing some possible numbers, so you can compare HIP-51 and HIP-80 results.Note this shows the launch problem of MOBILE, which will probably be stuck at a low score for quite some time under HIP-51. Those 10,000 Hotspots are out there with unpaid onboarding fees. (edited)
09:52
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 9:55 AM
Giving a runway until an arbitrary date in 2027 is ridiculous though. If a subDAO puts out 2 million hotspots next year it should scale down IOT under HIP-51. It’s dishonest to say this is not a change from HIP-51
Avatar
Also note that the "drag" on MOBILE by protecting IOT is not that bad. 89 vs. 93% makes less of a difference than 11 vs. 7%.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Giving a runway until an arbitrary date in 2027 is ridiculous though. If a subDAO puts out 2 million hotspots next year it should scale down IOT under HIP-51. It’s dishonest to say this is not a change from HIP-51
One view is that the original LoRa Hotspot owners agreed to welcome additional subDAOs into the Helium DAO based on the idea that they would retain a “founders bonus”. Also known as “don’t rug your investors”, which applies to HST as well. In that sense, protecting the existing LoRa network is “equitable”.
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Giving a runway until an arbitrary date in 2027 is ridiculous though. If a subDAO puts out 2 million hotspots next year it should scale down IOT under HIP-51. It’s dishonest to say this is not a change from HIP-51
I think it's fairly well known that the IOT network will take 5-10 years to fully ramp up and be sustainable. I argued for 2028 personally. The "subsidy" is also so low that the negative effect on other subDAOs is negligible IMO
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 9:59 AM
Yea but LoRa earned more than 50% of the HNT and subDAOs make that HNT more valuable
Avatar
Doesn't really matter how much they earned in the past. They need ongoing funding for the network to continue to exist
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:00 AM
That’s what veHNT delegation is for
Avatar
Partially, yes. We've also dampened the effect of that in this HIP
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea but LoRa earned more than 50% of the HNT and subDAOs make that HNT more valuable
Of course. Those of us who own HNT are probably less worried about ongoing LoRa rewards from that point of view. But many LoRa builders sold a good portion of their earnings to cover costs.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:01 AM
So we need to subsidize the people who sold their share?
10:01
Wtf kind of reasoning is that?
💯 1
Avatar
It's also arguable that veHNT delegation will be determined mostly by market forces--i.e. people will move stake wherever it's more profitable to sell the token
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:02 AM
But if those that vote for this HIP agree that IOT needs more runway then they’ll likely also delegate their veHNT towards the IOT subDAO
10:03
Mostly because the HNT holders own an outsized percentage of the IOT subDAO and will delegate towards the subDAO that they have the most exposure
Avatar
I think that's purely conjecture. You can't really know how people will delegate. Hence the need for the floor to protect IOT
10:04
Even with the floor, if everyone delegates to MOBILE, IOT will be in a tough spot
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:04 AM
Should Mobile get a flow because it came in before WiFi Dabba?
Avatar
Thanks all, I gotta run! Thanks @rawrmaan for taking questions. I’ll be back tomorrow!
👋 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Should Mobile get a flow because it came in before WiFi Dabba?
No, IOT is the only special case
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:05 AM
Mobile will take a few years to be rolled out, by your logic it should be given until 2027 to get data transfer too
Avatar
No way--I see mobile subDAO surpassing $75k/mo in no time flat
10:06
That's only 5TB per day on the whole network
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:06 AM
So then give it a floor of $75k too
10:07
It shouldn’t matter, right?
Avatar
Yes, you could give it a floor, but I don't really see the point since, as you're saying, it won't matter
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:07 AM
It’s just a weird argument to say one subDAO should get protections but other that generate revenue faster, shouldn’t. (edited)
Avatar
Not really IMO. It's the original subDAO that everyone signed up for, and it's exactly because it can't generate revenue quickly that it deserves protection. The inception of the Helium IOT is a one-off. It can't be replicated. So we need to protect it at least somewhat until it can reach its potential in order to not waste the moat we've built. I think the protection offered is more than reasonable, and will be irrelevant quickly (from the standpoint of negatively impacting MOBILE) with the revenue that MOBILE generates (edited)
Avatar
The 450k x $40 was also dropped so it’s not like this is completely one sided
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Here's a draft model showing some possible numbers, so you can compare HIP-51 and HIP-80 results.Note this shows the launch problem of MOBILE, which will probably be stuck at a low score for quite some time under HIP-51. Those 10,000 Hotspots are out there with unpaid onboarding fees. (edited)
something in the math seems wrong here
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:10 AM
HNT’s value shot up with the announcement of 5G though. 5G had a huge hand in 1 million hotspots burning $50 million worth of HNT. I think we forget that context
10:12
I’m also arguing this as someone with way more IOT exposure than mobile exposure. I feel this arbitrary protection date creates a system of unfair subDAO treatment that we shouldn’t allow
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:29 AM
Was there a huge flaw in total DC burn for onboarding to subDAO with a minimum burn per device for all subDAOs method?
Avatar
Multiple flaws. See #hip-78-mobile-subdao-onboarding-fees
10:33
It's unnecessarily complex to implement as well
Avatar
Why do the subDAOs need to compete with each other in the first place? We could eliminate HNT from the equation completely. Convert the existing HNT supply to IOT. Then let both subDAOs stand on their own going forward. :ducks:
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m also arguing this as someone with way more IOT exposure than mobile exposure. I feel this arbitrary protection date creates a system of unfair subDAO treatment that we shouldn’t allow
true and i'm probably the opposite, with way more MOBILE exposure, (just checking my Bias) but I always feel like there needs to be incentive the way I see improving this is just add a multiplier to IOT number example is just multiply the IOT DNS by some factor like 5-10 and you get there with still incentivizing competition
Avatar
Avatar
Jay M.
Why do the subDAOs need to compete with each other in the first place? We could eliminate HNT from the equation completely. Convert the existing HNT supply to IOT. Then let both subDAOs stand on their own going forward. :ducks:
I don't want to rehash all the arguments there, but you can view them in the #hip-51-helium-dao backscroll (warning very huge)
Avatar
Avatar
Jay M.
Why do the subDAOs need to compete with each other in the first place? We could eliminate HNT from the equation completely. Convert the existing HNT supply to IOT. Then let both subDAOs stand on their own going forward. :ducks:
ya this was discussed but this is one of the fairest way (so far) im just trying to get a grasp for what it will mean
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
That's only 5TB per day on the whole network
How many subscribers is that approximately?
Avatar
I know, I was there. Isn't this HIP rehashing HIP51 anyway?
Avatar
Maybe a tiny part of it
Avatar
I don’t think we’ll be passing anywhere near $75k in data on mobile anytime soon. A great majority of traffic will be going through T-Mobile and not helium radios
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
How many subscribers is that approximately?
That's hard to approximate as there are multiple factors. It matters not only how many subscribers there are, but what % of those subscribers' daily usage goes through Helium hotspots (as opposed to, say, T-Mo for Helium Mobile plans). That figure will change as 5G hotspots become more ubiquitous (edited)
Avatar
It’s far fetched to think that more then 25% data being moved by helium mobile will be on helium 5g radios
Avatar
I see a lot less opposition to it now given the current (word I'm not allowed to say) of HNT.
Avatar
I’d guess it will be less than 10% (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
But that's all I have to add. I'll let the bigger brains get back to it.
Avatar
I would say something like 0.5-2% to start
10:39
But that's a total guess
Avatar
So how are you getting to $75k a month? How many subscribers is that if 2% of their data is being passed through helium 5g
10:40
I think it’s a gross overestimation on how much data will be passed through 5g radios
💯 1
Avatar
The main differentiator between IOT and MOBILE subDAO in terms of this HIP is ability to onboard usage. The difficulty of growing MOBILE usage is basically nothing compared to growing IOT usage, where entire new fleets of hardware need to be deployed in the millions in highly specialized use cases
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
So how are you getting to $75k a month? How many subscribers is that if 2% of their data is being passed through helium 5g
75k/mo is an approximation of the same level of protection the original HIP 51 would have provided. It's only 30x the current usage
10:41
Plus, we need to wait for updated usage figures from the packet router. The current data is not reliable (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
The main differentiator between IOT and MOBILE subDAO in terms of this HIP is ability to onboard usage. The difficulty of growing MOBILE usage is basically nothing compared to growing IOT usage, where entire new fleets of hardware need to be deployed in the millions in highly specialized use cases
That’s great in theory but I’m not sure if you’ve looked at the competitive landscape of mobile mvnos over the last 6-12 months
Avatar
It's tough being an MVNO no doubt. I saw T-Mo acquired Mint, which will be good for competing MVNOs but bad for customers
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
I don’t think we’ll be passing anywhere near $75k in data on mobile anytime soon. A great majority of traffic will be going through T-Mobile and not helium radios
so right now the total mobile networks are passing 2,300,000 TB of data to get to 5 TB we only need to make up .00022% to achieve that and with about or about 35k subscribers using us 25% of the time give or take (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
so right now the total mobile networks are passing 2,300,000 TB of data to get to 5 TB we only need to make up .00022% to achieve that and with about or about 35k subscribers using us 25% of the time give or take (edited)
and please some one check my math
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Multiple flaws. See #hip-78-mobile-subdao-onboarding-fees
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 10:46 AM
Thanks. I was totally unaware of the channel I commented in multiple times. Can you please tell me what issues you as an author see with that implementation over this one?
10:48
I’m also confused how tallying the amount of DC burned for onboarding related expenses is too complex. I’m not a coder but in VBA you can do a sumif function. Not sure if that helps
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
so right now the total mobile networks are passing 2,300,000 TB of data to get to 5 TB we only need to make up .00022% to achieve that and with about or about 35k subscribers using us 25% of the time give or take (edited)
Not sure how your getting these numbers or how it would make sense? If IoT currently burns $1500-$3000 a month and your saying it’s moving 2,300TB/day (no way?). They’re going to put in a placeholder of $75k, 30x = 69,000TB/day. Rawr said Mobile would need to burn 5TB/day? I’m confused
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m also confused how tallying the amount of DC burned for onboarding related expenses is too complex. I’m not a coder but in VBA you can do a sumif function. Not sure if that helps
Not that it's "too complex", just unnecessarily complex. Especially given the issue with MOBILE hotspots not being paid for. IMO the previous DAO Utility Score was overly complicated. More complexity = less shared understanding and more edge cases that could lead to exploits or gaming (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
Not sure how your getting these numbers or how it would make sense? If IoT currently burns $1500-$3000 a month and your saying it’s moving 2,300TB/day (no way?). They’re going to put in a placeholder of $75k, 30x = 69,000TB/day. Rawr said Mobile would need to burn 5TB/day? I’m confused
IOT and MOBILE have different prices per GB, you can't compare the amount of data transmitted directly like that (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
Not sure how your getting these numbers or how it would make sense? If IoT currently burns $1500-$3000 a month and your saying it’s moving 2,300TB/day (no way?). They’re going to put in a placeholder of $75k, 30x = 69,000TB/day. Rawr said Mobile would need to burn 5TB/day? I’m confused
no mobile networks like tmobile, att, and verizon combined move about that much per month
Avatar
Ah, the comparison is off then, because we'd need 5TB per day for MOBILE to reach $75k/mo, not 5TB/mo
11:00
By my math, using the 2.3EB/mo number quoted above, MOBILE subDAO would need 0.0065% of data traffic to reach $75k/mo
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:02 AM
We’re still discounting that from a dollar perspective IOT is unaffected by other subDAOs passing a bunch of data, and if anything, IOT gets more value from other subDAOs killing it
Avatar
so i used different math for the second part its (17.4x35000x.25)/30 (user avg month x subscribers x usage over Tmobile)/30 actaully does get you to 5 TB a day so that number seems right (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:03 AM
Do we want to pander to the idiots that only care about internet points in a vacuum or do we want to have a successful disrupter?
Avatar
I think you may have lost me there Max--not sure what you're saying
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:05 AM
The number of HNT in the treasury is irrelevant if it’s driven by network value. More burn means higher price.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
By my math, using the 2.3EB/mo number quoted above, MOBILE subDAO would need 0.0065% of data traffic to reach $75k/mo
Which looks like a small number. But we’re talking about the actual 5g radios traffic only not all of helium mobile. I think that is a huge number
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:05 AM
The same amount of dollars flow into IOT regardless
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
Which looks like a small number. But we’re talking about the actual 5g radios traffic only not all of helium mobile. I think that is a huge number
You've gotta remember, though, that data usage is on an exponential trend upwards. In addition, Helium 5G will capture the entire market in certain underserved areas, which will drive a disproportionate amount of value
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The same amount of dollars flow into IOT regardless
it just change one aspect the number still does change based on how well MOBILE does (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:07 AM
The better mobile does the more valuable IOT’s HNT is worth.
Avatar
Yes, that's taken into account
11:08
Just to put my stance out there: I could absolutely see an argument for adding a floor to MOBILE as well to start, as long as it's within the 3-6x range lower than IOT (similar to what existed in HIP 51)
👍 1
Avatar
esp since there will be a time between migration and helium mobile/ foundation sims launching ...
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Just to put my stance out there: I could absolutely see an argument for adding a floor to MOBILE as well to start, as long as it's within the 3-6x range lower than IOT (similar to what existed in HIP 51)
so why not just make it 20k per month problem solved?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
so why not just make it 20k per month problem solved?
I would defer to @ferebee (who unfortunately isn't around for the rest of the day) on this point
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:11 AM
I just think the floor is relatively unnecessary
11:12
And we shouldn’t add arbitrary things based on arbitrary calcs at the 11th hour
☝️ 2
Avatar
If you don't have the floor, IOT gets crushed, and fast
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:12 AM
Crush in HNT terms, not in dollar terms
Avatar
And this is not arbitrary. It's simply a different implementation of the same protections agreed to in HIP 51
11:12
It's not new, and it's not a surprise or 11th hour addition
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:12 AM
The date is arbitrary though
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
If you don't have the floor, IOT gets crushed, and fast
I agree with this
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Crush in HNT terms, not in dollar terms
You can't prove this. Your argument relies heavily on market forces which are out of our control
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:13 AM
If the market cap stays the same but more HNT is burned than is emitted then the price goes up
Avatar
Theoretically, but there's no guarantee
11:14
We need to stay within the realm of what we can control
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:14 AM
There is no scenario in which an exponential increase in DC burn happens and there is no increase in price
11:15
The market is the market but you can strip that away in both scenarios because it’s a constant
Avatar
There's also no scenario in which exponential increase in DC burn happens and MOBILE subDAO doesn't gain a massive advantage in the utility score
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:16 AM
It should get a massive advantage though
Avatar
We need the floor because of the pre-exponential days, not for when exponential growth happens. At that point, the floor is unnecessary
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:16 AM
But the floor hurts the third subDAO
11:16
Unless we’re just going to concede there will only be 2 then fine
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But the floor hurts the third subDAO
we can always work a floor into the calculation if needed?
Avatar
Not any more than it hurts the second. New subDAOs will not get the same "jump start" emissions that the existing ones have. They will need to prove their value by transmitting data early and fast
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:17 AM
If they can transmit data early and fast why be a helium subDAO or even use a token for that matter
👆 1
Avatar
Because when they do transmit data, the protocol will automatically invest in their growth
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:19 AM
Like I’ve had this discussion with multiple founders on the pros of being a subDAO vs doing your own SPL or Polygon token and the economics make it an impossible sell
Avatar
But I do think you bring up an argument against the new DAO utility score: Upstart subDAOs will not be able to gain any advantage from simply paying onboarding fees
11:19
There could be an argument for having a floor for all new subDAOs. But in that case, there would need to be a vetting process to make sure only quality ones exist
11:20
That vetting process could be the existing HIP process
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:20 AM
There already is a vetting process. Or at least in theory there is
👍 1
Avatar
I do see your point that not having a floor removes the "bootstrapping" incentives for new subDAOs--at least mostly. They can still buy HNT and delegate but that kind of requires them to be the investor instead of the Helium DAO
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:21 AM
The reason I like the burn based score is #1 it takes into account burn. #2 the higher the onboard burn (as set by the subDAO) the safer a subDAO is from key churning attacks and those subDAOs should get rewarded for being “safer”
Avatar
The question that point raises is whether high onboarding fees can exist in an environment where we don't have massive infinite demand for hardware like we did in 2021
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:23 AM
Obviously opens up a whole other can of worms but I wonder what the math is on the value of a fake device. It could be a net negative to burn HNT to onboard a device to increase the score.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
The question that point raises is whether high onboarding fees can exist in an environment where we don't have massive infinite demand for hardware like we did in 2021
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:23 AM
I look at it as the fee that gets paid to Helium DAO for incubating a new project
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
The question that point raises is whether high onboarding fees can exist in an environment where we don't have massive infinite demand for hardware like we did in 2021
yes this is a big problem, I think that 5 might be to cheap as well most people arent going to bat an eye at 10 either
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:24 AM
Would you rather be a subDAO with 8,000 radios or XNet with 60?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I look at it as the fee that gets paid to Helium DAO for incubating a new project
This is an interesting perspective. That is basically what it is yes
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:27 AM
I think we for sure need some floor, call it $5. Then we allow the subDAOs to scale up and down based on the value of their hardware. $100 for a VPP subDAO is a relatively tiny increase in capex whereas $20 for a VPN is probably high. (edited)
Avatar
Yeah, a base onboarding fee that subDAOs can set would be good
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:33 AM
And we want to encourage more burn for onboarding. Whether or not it happens is another thing but we should reward subDAOs that use the onboarding fee as a proxy for network value
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
And we want to encourage more burn for onboarding. Whether or not it happens is another thing but we should reward subDAOs that use the onboarding fee as a proxy for network value
I guess I just don't view arbitrary burn useful
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:34 AM
It’s not arbitrary burn
11:35
Also token burn is incredibly useful. It’s a reason for people to buy the token and gives it value.
11:35
If there was no onboarding fee you likely wouldn’t be here, gateholder
11:35
I sure wouldn’t be
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also token burn is incredibly useful. It’s a reason for people to buy the token and gives it value.
I think this is where you and I differ, to some degree I don't like just holding Tokens im much more interested in the sheer usefulness and what it is able to produce rather than just holding it hoping for the value to spike
Avatar
JMF is typing 🔥
Avatar
I wouldn’t be opposed to a floor on all subDAOs. Imo the $75k a month is a little high but not outrageously so.
11:43
Haha @rawrmaan
11:44
And ive also said I would support ammonium $5 activation. It makes a ton of sense
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:45 AM
I don’t think it’s outrageous either. Just think there are better ways of capturing network value
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
And ive also said I would support ammonium $5 activation. It makes a ton of sense
a minimum?
Avatar
Yea right now it just says all subDAOs are set at $5 until further changes.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:46 AM
I’m probably being far too black and white by thinking it should all be dictated by burn and the wishes of the veHNT holders (edited)
11:48
What if we set it at $40 retroactive to 8/1/19 then halved it every halving
11:48
So it would be $20 today and $10 on 8/1/23
11:50
One of the arguments for 2 year halving was the cost of hardware should have half every 2 years so halving the minimum onboard burn makes sense too
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think this is where you and I differ, to some degree I don't like just holding Tokens im much more interested in the sheer usefulness and what it is able to produce rather than just holding it hoping for the value to spike
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:57 AM
I get that argument but you should read multicoin’s essay on the token velocity problem.
Avatar
Is there any way I can get in contact with Sean?
11:58
Sean Carey?
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
1. no not here
11:59
2. youre in the wrong channel
Avatar
Lol
12:00
Can you help direct me?
Avatar
3. we dont speak about legal matters on this discord
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 12:00 PM
HIP-81 channel
😂 4
Avatar
I’m trying to get in contact with Sean because Robinhood may have accidentally sent me some of his personal private information.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I get that argument but you should read multicoin’s essay on the token velocity problem.
I think i've seen this before but yes i'm just saying that doesn't necessarily drive me as antithetical as that may be
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP-81 channel
Thank you. Nevermind. (edited)
😆 1
12:01
Laughing out loud.
Avatar
sorry, sean is not on this discord
Avatar
So no one by the name Sean Carey is here?
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 12:02 PM
Wtf is going on
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP-81 channel
that was mean (edited)
Avatar
This guy isn’t here??
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 12:03 PM
That guy isn’t the actual founder either lol
Avatar
Ofcourse.
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 12:03 PM
Carry on (edited)
Avatar
Lol
12:03
Whatever.
Avatar
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎
That guy isn’t the actual founder either lol
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 12:03 PM
I’m pretty sure he was
👆 1
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 12:04 PM
Oh was he?
12:04
Way before my time then
12:04
Ahhh
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 12:04 PM
Yea. Helium originally wanted to make your pet rock connect to the internet
12:04
Thank you for the help!
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 12:05 PM
Anyway, wrong channel. Try Twitter
Avatar
Reason I ask is because Robinhood has accidentally sent me someone’s private information (statement) showing their account number, name, and address. And there is nothing okay about that.
🤯 1
12:06
@Max - Just Max I was able to find him. Thank you.
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 12:06 PM
You’re in the wrong channel to discuss that, try contacting Robinhood
Avatar
No I contact the person who may have the legal case on the company 😂
👍 1
12:06
But okay.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 12:06 PM
Yea, but Arman is trying to add a $75,000 floor for IOT and this is the channel for that discussion, not Robinhood
12:07
We live in a society with rules
Avatar
I understand that. But it’s important I find Sean Carey and make him aware that Robinhood has sent his private information out into the public. All I was trying to do was find Sean. I did not mean any harm 😂
facepalm 2
Avatar
Avatar
NotPidgey
No I contact the person who may have the legal case on the company 😂
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 03/29/2023 1:00 PM
Contact his Twitter?
13:00
We cannot discuss legal stuff here in this Discord, per the #rules
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Contact his Twitter?
Correct, I will not discuss legal stuff in this server. I do not intend to. Was just looking for Sean.
Avatar
Avatar
NotPidgey
Correct, I will not discuss legal stuff in this server. I do not intend to. Was just looking for Sean.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 03/29/2023 1:04 PM
Found him? Case closed.
Avatar
So yeah... About that HIP80.
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Found him? Case closed.
Correct. Was as simple as just finding him.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Click to see attachment 🖼️
There is potentially an error in your math. The HIP says "the square root of DC Burn and the square root of delegated veHNT" but the description in the excel spreadsheet shows SQRT ( veHNT + DC/epoch ). These two things do not agree conceptually. SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) does not equal SQRT (a + b). SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) > SQRT (a + b) [when using positive numbers only] I would think the math should be SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) and that would agree with the text in the HIP. (edited)
Avatar
@ferebee he’s right. They should be separate .
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
There is potentially an error in your math. The HIP says "the square root of DC Burn and the square root of delegated veHNT" but the description in the excel spreadsheet shows SQRT ( veHNT + DC/epoch ). These two things do not agree conceptually. SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) does not equal SQRT (a + b). SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) > SQRT (a + b) [when using positive numbers only] I would think the math should be SQRT (a) + SQRT(b) and that would agree with the text in the HIP. (edited)
We’re multiplying the two. SQRT(a) * SQRT(b) = SQRT(a * b). Example, SQRT(4) * SQRT(9) = 2 * 3 = 6 = SQRT(4 * 9) = SQRT(36). The text “considers … the square root of DC Burn and the square root of delegated veHNT” is not intended to mean the one thing PLUS the other. Rather, it considers the one thing, and it also considers the other. LMK if you feel that is confusing, perhaps we should change the wording.
Avatar
"The product of the square roots of DC Burn and veHNT"?
👍 1
Avatar
It’s simple: If it’s confusing, the text should be changed. 😄 Thanks for pointing that out. I won’t actually write any new text right now after 8 hours of non-optional previously scheduled partying.
🥳 1
18:02
(We can’t be adding the two, as they may be in completely different ballparks. For example, there may be billions and billions of veHNT, but DC burn per epoch may be in the thousands. Multiplying them works fine.)
✅ 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It’s simple: If it’s confusing, the text should be changed. 😄 Thanks for pointing that out. I won’t actually write any new text right now after 8 hours of non-optional previously scheduled partying.
The hip is well written. Accolades are warranted for the contributors. Is the 50 floor for IoT too high? Did you model that number to come up with it?
🙌 1
Avatar
Thanks all for the engagement. I certainly understand that any proposal that could change the distribution of HNT between the subDAOs can be contentious. I welcome all constructive criticism of the proposed new Utility Score. “Constructive” means, if you don’t like it, please propose an alternative. It’s fine if the alternative is “just stick with HIP-51”, but in that case, do consider that on the one hand, MOBILE will be stuck with an “A factor” of 1 initially, due to the missing $400,000 of onboarding fees that haven’t been budgeted for the existing MOBILE Hotspots in the MOBILE subDAO… And on the other hand, IOT risks being marginalized over the longer term, before its potential can be realized. (And before you discount IOT, do the math of what 1 billion sensors could do, each burning one DC every five minutes. Don’t forget LoRa Class C. Will we reach that? It’s hard to say, isn’t it? Would be cool though.) If you disagree with anything in particular, it would be helpful if you could reference how it affects the rough modelling of potential outcomes I posted above. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1090679775091228715
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
The hip is well written. Accolades are warranted for the contributors. Is the 50 floor for IoT too high? Did you model that number to come up with it?
The Floor of 50 treats IOT as if it were burning $75,000/month. We don’t actually know how much IOT is burning right now, but that is providing something like a 30x to 50x advantage to IOT at current burn rates. In other words, once LoRa burns 30–50 times what it's burning now (which is very little), the Floor factor (or “founder’s bonus”) will become irrelevant anyway. I think we can all agree that LoRa has not reached its full potential yet. In the discussions leading up to HIP-51, capcom promised that LoRa would initially be getting 90%+ of HNT. From the rough model I posted earlier, it looks like we won’t be providing more than that. And as Arman says, if MOBILE can’t do $75,000 fairly soon, we’re living on the wrong planet. (edited)
ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 03/29/2023 6:38 PM
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The Floor of 50 treats IOT as if it were burning $75,000/month. We don’t actually know how much IOT is burning right now, but that is providing something like a 30x to 50x advantage to IOT at current burn rates. In other words, once LoRa burns 30–50 times what it's burning now (which is very little), the Floor factor (or “founder’s bonus”) will become irrelevant anyway. I think we can all agree that LoRa has not reached its full potential yet. In the discussions leading up to HIP-51, capcom promised that LoRa would initially be getting 90%+ of HNT. From the rough model I posted earlier, it looks like we won’t be providing more than that. And as Arman says, if MOBILE can’t do $75,000 fairly soon, we’re living on the wrong planet. (edited)
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 6:44 PM
No such promise was made. That was just the projected result of HIP-51 with no data transfer and an expected flat delegation of veHNT
18:49
Also your model doesn’t take into account a third or fourth subDAO. This HIP hurts the scaling of Helium DAO
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No such promise was made. That was just the projected result of HIP-51 with no data transfer and an expected flat delegation of veHNT
That’s not how I read capcom’s pinned post in #general. Obviously this was almost a year ago, which is a century ago in blockchain years. But I do believe this narrative shaped initial perceptions of HIP-51. (edited)
18:50
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 6:52 PM
HIP-51 there was a big push towards, just vote for the general idea of subDAOs and we’ll figure out the details later. Idk that it makes much sense in this scenario to point every small detail in 51 and say we should keep it similar to 51
Avatar
The point of HIP-80 is to solve several existing issues (as explained in the Motivation section) while not overriding the spirit of HIP-51, which is what people voted on. Evolution, not revolution. There is room for revolution, but that needs to be a different HIP.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 6:57 PM
We actually have a good metric for network size with burn. I’d hate to stunt that and only have one subDAO get the value
18:58
We disagree because you’re solving todays problems. Solving them well, I’ll add. I’m looking at this from the lens of “how do we convince new projects to pick helium over IOTEX”
👍 1
Avatar
The biggest risk of all, which could lead to just one subDAO getting all the HNT, is the linear V factor in the DAO Utility Score of HIP-51. As JMF pointed out, this would allow a whale delegation of veHNT to one subDAO to override all other factors. Furthermore, once a majority of veHNT is delegated to one subDAO, it becomes counterproductive for economically motivated investors to delegate to any other subDAO. That is where we get a winner-takes-all scenario. Which is why JMF proposed we change the V factor to the square root of veHNT delegation, aligned with the square root of DC burn.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We disagree because you’re solving todays problems. Solving them well, I’ll add. I’m looking at this from the lens of “how do we convince new projects to pick helium over IOTEX”
Have you considered the importance of the square root? The point of taking the square root, rather than using DC burn as a linear factor, is exactly to incentivize new subDAOs. Because of the square root, their HNT share will ramp much faster than their DC burn, so they can come up to speed quickly.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 7:28 PM
I think you misunderstood my overall point. We want to reward dc burn as much as possible. More DC burn means higher HNT price so from a pure dollar perspective the more we decouple from DC burn determining the value of a subDAO the less attractive it is to new potential subDAOs.
19:31
The other issue is the perceived favoritism that having a single subDAO receive a floor DC burn amount. I understand why it’s being done but I really think we discount the influence 5G had on the token price (specifically that DISH announcement) and the effect the token price had on the exponential growth the LoRa network saw.
19:35
Capturing the value of hardware in a given network and using dynamic HNT burn rates set by the subDAOs to onboard devices is actually a good proxy in the pre revenue days and also provides value to Helium DAO because it creates buy pressure and DC burn before there is DC burn for network usage. Think we’re making a huge mistake to totally remove the device factor in the 11th hour.
19:36
FWIW @ferebee I liked the limited scope of 78 much better. I think we can revisit this idea of a total revamp after the migration. Especially since it’ll give us a good idea about how much veHNT will be staked and how much we can expect delegation to affect utility scores
Avatar
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎
That guy isn’t the actual founder either lol
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:37 PM
I’m not?
19:37
Shows what you know buddy
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
I’m not?
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 7:38 PM
This is is amazing. We’ve come full circle from this afternoon
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 7:38 PM
I don’t know shit here and I’ve been here for nearly 2 years I’m still learning
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:38 PM
hahaha always funny when someone doesn’t know the history of a business
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 7:38 PM
I’ll admit it
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:38 PM
and then they publicly write it
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 7:39 PM
There’s a video somewhere pitching helium way before the blockchain days pitching the idea of pet rocks being connected to the internet. Was that you?
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:39 PM
I founded helium. Not the blockchain
👍 1
19:40
With my good buddy capcom and Mr. Fanning.
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
With my good buddy capcom and Mr. Fanning.
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 7:41 PM
I was under the impression that Cap Frank and Fanning started helium
😂 1
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:41 PM
Here’s an 8 year old video of my beautiful big ass talking all about it. 😘
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎 03/29/2023 7:41 PM
But I’m glad to learn something new, thank you
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:41 PM
Carry on
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 7:42 PM
That’s the video.
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:42 PM
I take no claim to fame on the chain. That was all professor and capcom and whoever else
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Kennyy - 😎
I was under the impression that Cap Frank and Fanning started helium
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 7:42 PM
No Frank Mong turned down the job at Helium. Then said fuck it you like video games, I like video games, sign me up. (edited)
👍 2
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:43 PM
Little known fact I did hire professor. We worked at Basho together
19:43
And Phark
Avatar
Don’t wanna be a spoilsport here, but would y’all mind moving this to #general? 😉
❤️ 1
👍 3
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:44 PM
Now I’m just the guy that gets to shoot his mouth off and not get a Forbes article written about it 😉
😂 2
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Don’t wanna be a spoilsport here, but would y’all mind moving this to #general? 😉
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 7:45 PM
Yessir I’m done.
💜 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 7:45 PM
Back to the HIP, Ferebee, what are your thoughts?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Back to the HIP, Ferebee, what are your thoughts?
So anyway 😄 what formula do you propose for the DAO Utility Score? Are you proposing to keep the Score from HIP-51? Remember that nobody has paid those $400,000 for the existing MOBILE Hotspots. I tried to negotiate to get people to pay them, but didn’t get any takers.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So anyway 😄 what formula do you propose for the DAO Utility Score? Are you proposing to keep the Score from HIP-51? Remember that nobody has paid those $400,000 for the existing MOBILE Hotspots. I tried to negotiate to get people to pay them, but didn’t get any takers.
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 7:48 PM
Pre-Migration yes. We can keep the piece about a minimum onboard fee (I suggested higher up a halving schedule for that rather than a $5 minimum) then we make the active device score based on total number of DC burned rather than current onboard rate times number of active devices.
19:49
This was kinda ambiguous in the 51 days but I think the assert fee should count since you can’t actually mine with an IOT hotspot without burning that extra $10
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also your model doesn’t take into account a third or fourth subDAO. This HIP hurts the scaling of Helium DAO
I actually had this same thought while reading the hip. Will this penalize Wi-Fi Dabba to the point that they change their mind? It’s a good thought.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I actually had this same thought while reading the hip. Will this penalize Wi-Fi Dabba to the point that they change their mind? It’s a good thought.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
Here’s an 8 year old video of my beautiful big ass talking all about it. 😘
This is so cool :). What do you think. Thumbs up or down for this HiP?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Agreed.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Pre-Migration yes. We can keep the piece about a minimum onboard fee (I suggested higher up a halving schedule for that rather than a $5 minimum) then we make the active device score based on total number of DC burned rather than current onboard rate times number of active devices.
Pre-migration, there is no DAO Utility Score. It comes into play with the transition to Solana and the DAO/subDAO architecture. If you prefer to keep the HIP-51 Score, that will be the Score going forward until an alternative is proposed. That has disadvantages, as outlined in the Motivation section of HIP-80. If you believe the HIP-51 Score is preferable, perhaps you can explain why based on the rough modelling in my last pinned post, or based on some other modelling? If you are suggesting a different Score, that would be easier to understand if you could state it precisely, and ideally show its advantage in a model…
20:01
Anyway, sorry, it’s 5 AM here in Frankfurt, the world’s smallest metropolis (after Helsinki, Horace tells me), and I need to get to bed. Will check up in the morning!
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Anyway, sorry, it’s 5 AM here in Frankfurt, the world’s smallest metropolis (after Helsinki, Horace tells me), and I need to get to bed. Will check up in the morning!
Sleep well. Great job once again:)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Pre-migration, there is no DAO Utility Score. It comes into play with the transition to Solana and the DAO/subDAO architecture. If you prefer to keep the HIP-51 Score, that will be the Score going forward until an alternative is proposed. That has disadvantages, as outlined in the Motivation section of HIP-80. If you believe the HIP-51 Score is preferable, perhaps you can explain why based on the rough modelling in my last pinned post, or based on some other modelling? If you are suggesting a different Score, that would be easier to understand if you could state it precisely, and ideally show its advantage in a model…
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:02 PM
I’m saying in terms of getting something passed before migration. It doesn’t really make sense to rush this with arbitrary numbers added when we can have a ton of extra data in a month from now.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
This is so cool :). What do you think. Thumbs up or down for this HiP?
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:02 PM
Well I like the idea of keeping device onboarding prices low in the beginning. It will make it easier to achieve critical mass early on. If there are going to be devices selling for $50, it would be a hit to charge $40 to onboard.
👆 3
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
Well I like the idea of keeping device onboarding prices low in the beginning. It will make it easier to achieve critical mass early on. If there are going to be devices selling for $50, it would be a hit to charge $40 to onboard.
Do you think the floor of 50 is too high, to low, or reasonably right for a best guess?
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
Well I like the idea of keeping device onboarding prices low in the beginning. It will make it easier to achieve critical mass early on. If there are going to be devices selling for $50, it would be a hit to charge $40 to onboard.
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:04 PM
The subDAOs can choose whatever price they want under the current system. More expensive networks from a capex perspective will have no incentive to have a higher onboard fee if there is no payoff for doing so
20:04
Floor of 50 is absolutely too high
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Floor of 50 is absolutely too high
I’m not convinced. Yet. I’m not ready to conclude one way or the other. Asking for opinions right now 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:05 PM
If a hardware device like baicells is $3000, no one cares about $50. At least I wouldn’t have. If my hardware was 50 and onboarding was 50, I’d ask if I can just get the hardware for free like I do at T-Mobile.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I’m not convinced. Yet. I’m not ready to conclude one way or the other. Asking for opinions right now 🙂 (edited)
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:05 PM
We’re talking floor. It doesn’t have to be the floor but for a VPN network that is just an SD card addition, $50 is very high
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
If a hardware device like baicells is $3000, no one cares about $50. At least I wouldn’t have. If my hardware was 50 and onboarding was 50, I’d ask if I can just get the hardware for free like I do at T-Mobile.
I’m referring to the floor of 50 for the subDAO Utility score. One moment.
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
If a hardware device like baicells is $3000, no one cares about $50. At least I wouldn’t have. If my hardware was 50 and onboarding was 50, I’d ask if I can just get the hardware for free like I do at T-Mobile.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:09 PM
Oh that floor. Yea the floor is the piece I really don’t like. Shows favoritism to IOT. Much better to count the DC burn from onboarding in a bucket that every other subDAO can compete with.
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:11 PM
What would someone in Africa pay? Blockchains for all, right. In America a salad from Panera via Uber eats is $40. So cost distortion and things are real
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh that floor. Yea the floor is the piece I really don’t like. Shows favoritism to IOT. Much better to count the DC burn from onboarding in a bucket that every other subDAO can compete with.
I wouldn’t call it favoritism, I would call it protecting what we built. Hotspots all over the world, and slowly growing. Rural areas are next.
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I wouldn’t call it favoritism, I would call it protecting what we built. Hotspots all over the world, and slowly growing. Rural areas are next.
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:13 PM
is there any data on iot traffic these days? Not just who plugged a hotspot in?
Avatar
Sorry. Deleting price talk.
20:14
Carry on.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:14 PM
Historical price talk is allowed
Avatar
Sorry but it’s not.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:15 PM
More people wanted to own HNT after HIP 27 started being thown around. About 55x as much at one point
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:15 PM
Price of what?
20:15
price of token or price of onboarding?
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
price of token or price of onboarding?
Token
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:16 PM
Ah shit, @Keenan is right. Past price isn’t allowed
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:16 PM
Ohhh I must have missed
Avatar
Sorry don’t mean to be a buzz kill.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:16 PM
My bad
Avatar
All good.
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:16 PM
Hey at least it wasn’t me
20:17
I’m trying to behave
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
Ohhh I must have missed
But my question had nothing to do with price. It’s about how the DAO Utility score is calculated. What’s the right number? 50? 40? 60? For the IoT subDAO (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I wouldn’t call it favoritism, I would call it protecting what we built. Hotspots all over the world, and slowly growing. Rural areas are next.
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:18 PM
To this point, shouldn’t another subDAO that puts up 1 million hotspots also get that protection even if it doesn’t have data transfer yet?
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:18 PM
Can you explain the utility score like I’m 5?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:19 PM
It’s the scoring system to determine the value of each subDAO. SubDAO tokens are backed by HNT in a treasury account similar to gold backing the dollar in the boomer era
20:19
Every epoch more HNT is deposited into those treasury accounts and to the HST holders. (edited)
Avatar
Yes. Each subDAO gets a prorata share of HNT distributed into their treasury. The DAO Utility score is how the pro rata fórmula is calculated.
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:20 PM
yup got that .. so at 50 on iot
20:20
it would be 50%
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
it would be 50%
Or 50x
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:21 PM
so if 1HNT was emitted
20:21
and mobiles floor was 10
20:21
and iot was 50
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
and mobiles floor was 10
Mobile’s floor is 1
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:21 PM
I’m saying if
20:22
Mobile would be 1/5th of iot? (edited)
Avatar
Yes
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:22 PM
So it’s a weight
Avatar
Yes
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:22 PM
Mobile only gets credit for the DC usage on the network whereas IOT gets a minimum of $75,000 per month worth of data transfer even if it’s 0
👆 1
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:22 PM
just like you’d do in a a cdn or a load balancer
20:23
got you
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:24 PM
The argument is IOT was first and should be protected because another subDAO is coming along and potentially burning way more DC despite not having a 3 and a half year head start
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:25 PM
so if Toyota made an electric car that was as good or better than a Tesla. Would Teslas market share go down?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:25 PM
My position is that’s fine but make it fair so that if another subDAO comes along and pays onboarding fees of $50 million they should get that same protection
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The argument is IOT was first and should be protected because another subDAO is coming along and potentially burning way more DC despite not having a 3 and a half year head start
Plus, we don’t want to abandon the network we have built as companies are designing ways to use it.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Plus, we don’t want to abandon the network we have built as companies are designing ways to use it.
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:25 PM
This is the big question
20:26
I dream of people sending small amount of data everywhere
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
so if Toyota made an electric car that was as good or better than a Tesla. Would Teslas market share go down?
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:26 PM
Yes but in this scenario Tesla shareholders get to decide the value of Toyota’s market share
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Plus, we don’t want to abandon the network we have built as companies are designing ways to use it.
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:27 PM
But it’s not abandoning it. There’s a BME. More DC burn is good
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes but in this scenario Tesla shareholders get to decide the value of Toyota’s market share
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:27 PM
Agree with you. I don’t think iot should get special treatment for being iot. But I very very much would like to see it successful
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:27 PM
Be back in like 20 mins
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
I dream of people sending small amount of data everywhere
Exactly. I don’t want to rip the heart out of the technology/network that takes 9 years to mature.
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:28 PM
And I agree but at the same time, what if the growth of ankther subdao is explosive
20:29
Iot will have to give
20:29
even if it’s not what people want.
Avatar
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy
even if it’s not what people want.
I’m on board. So again, what’s the right number? 50? 20? 60?
Avatar
Sean | BlockJoy 03/29/2023 8:32 PM
It’s a good question. Not one I should answer though. Because my stake is much higher in one of the 2. Im not sure that I could be completely unbiased.
20:34
I’d set the floor based on more than just how many devices there are
👍 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 8:45 PM
The floor is an artificial number and only given to one subDAO though. Really think it should just be 1. (edited)
20:48
Sorry to late night tag but you are online. @valerie is this HIP considered critical and needs to happen pre-migration or is 77 the only critical HIP remaining?
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 9:14 PM
just catching up. so the number of devices no longer is in the equation and the only contention is the Floor and how long the protection lasts?
Avatar
Max I understand your complaint. Having said that when hip 51 was going for a vote the iot community were reassured that their network wouldn’t be left behind, and at that point it was all of us. We wouldn’t be here without that vote. If we just let 5g takeover we will literally lose the iot network and alienate a lot of the community. You want people to unplug? I surely would and I haven’t really made much with my fleet already but I’ve hung in there we start cutting into what’s left drastically we have issues.
👆 1
Avatar
plainsimpletech 03/29/2023 9:15 PM
My view is that 5G is a sub network as far as utility and coverage compared to IoT. 5g is North America only whereas IoT is international. How is this factored into this consideration?
Avatar
Dc burn doesn’t care about borders lol
Avatar
Avatar
plainsimpletech
My view is that 5G is a sub network as far as utility and coverage compared to IoT. 5g is North America only whereas IoT is international. How is this factored into this consideration?
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 9:21 PM
i don't see why its relevant that 5g is limited to US.
Avatar
Avatar
plainsimpletech
My view is that 5G is a sub network as far as utility and coverage compared to IoT. 5g is North America only whereas IoT is international. How is this factored into this consideration?
Anything that is useful and leads to data credit spending is win win win.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Max I understand your complaint. Having said that when hip 51 was going for a vote the iot community were reassured that their network wouldn’t be left behind, and at that point it was all of us. We wouldn’t be here without that vote. If we just let 5g takeover we will literally lose the iot network and alienate a lot of the community. You want people to unplug? I surely would and I haven’t really made much with my fleet already but I’ve hung in there we start cutting into what’s left drastically we have issues.
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:36 PM
But also HIP-51 was supposed to go into effect in July 2022. No one thought IOT would have a further 8 months from that point with 100% of the HNT rewards.
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:37 PM
at migration, iot is 5b and mobile is 50b
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:38 PM
The number of DNTs emitted doesn’t matter though. Unless I’m missing something
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:39 PM
mobile is already at a disadvantage if you consider redemption
Avatar
I don't see how it matters
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
mobile is already at a disadvantage if you consider redemption
MOBILE, or your personal wallet?
23:39
I don't see how a subDAO is at a disadvantage for having more DNT in circulation
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:41 PM
less hnt in treasury against mobile circulating supply
👆 1
Avatar
but how is that a disadvantage for the subDAO
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:42 PM
im not against this hip though, i think its better than 51, just not sure if the floor and the length of time
Avatar
not to mention a significant chunk of that 50b is in the hands of 5g owners in the form of genesis rewards
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:43 PM
maybe im not seeing it, but the redemption value for mobile will be lower than iot no?
Avatar
yes, but that's not a disadvantage for the subDAO, that's a potential disadvantage for a MOBILE owner
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:44 PM
i see it as a disadvantage for mobile deployers considering building the network
23:45
it's the same reason why iot hotspot owners fear that people will leave the network no?
23:46
because there's not enough incentive to stay/grow
Avatar
I think the floor is there to give the 980k x $40 the value it had without this change
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:48 PM
i think this hip solves one issue no one had an answer to, which is what do we do with the onboarding cost for mobile
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
i see it as a disadvantage for mobile deployers considering building the network
The reason this genesis exists is to give 5g owners some rewards while doing nothing (useful), so to now turn back and use that as an argument is a bit duplicitous. Another reason why this HIP is even necessary is because noone was willing to cough up the onboarding fees
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:49 PM
i personally would have just turn rewards off until radio owners pay for it themselves but i'm probably the minority
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think the floor is there to give the 980k x $40 the value it had without this change
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:51 PM
That’s fine but HIP-51 solved for that already
Avatar
not after this HIP
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:51 PM
Also why is IOT the only subDAO that gets to get value for onboarding devices
23:52
It’s a terribly short sighted HIP
Avatar
who else onboarded any devices?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:52 PM
Hence the short sighted part
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The reason this genesis exists is to give 5g owners some rewards while doing nothing (useful), so to now turn back and use that as an argument is a bit duplicitous. Another reason why this HIP is even necessary is because noone was willing to cough up the onboarding fees
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:53 PM
so you agree that network that do the most work should earn their fair share?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:53 PM
So basically one subDAO can’t figure out how to onboard their devices so we’re doing a complete overhaul?
Avatar
in principle, yes, but that already went out the window with the vehnt staking
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:54 PM
veHNT delegating is arguably the weakest of the 3 current factors
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
So basically one subDAO can’t figure out how to onboard their devices so we’re doing a complete overhaul?
Basically, yes. One subDAO was too cheap to pay up
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:55 PM
I don’t actually think that’s the case though
23:55
I was told to get a HIP passed and the token burn would be taken care of
Avatar
The whole onboarding fee is also a bit weird since you no longer need it for sybil resistance
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:56 PM
i don't think mobile subdao is too cheap to pay up, it was never brought up until recently (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/29/2023 11:56 PM
But you need it as your fee for incubating in the helium DAO (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
i don't think mobile subdao is too cheap to pay up, it was never brought up until recently (edited)
I heard a lot of noise from people with a lot of radios, mobile wg included that said "you can't ask that from radio owners"
23:57
I am not too sure having a $5 is a good idea because people can use Helium as an incubator and then move on, but that's another discussion
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I heard a lot of noise from people with a lot of radios, mobile wg included that said "you can't ask that from radio owners"
Brainstormer 03/29/2023 11:58 PM
i have gone back and forth on it, and eventually decided that radio owners should pay. ive even had a private DM with ferebee about it
23:59
i don't believe ive ever said that we can't ask that from radio owners. i have said that about manufacturers.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:00 AM
Baicells sells dog shit radios that no one outside of helium wants to buy
00:00
They can pay
00:00
Like the latency on those things is awful
👀 1
00:00
No WISP wants to work with them
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/30/2023 12:01 AM
as far as this hip goes, i think 50 is too much and too long.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I am not too sure having a $5 is a good idea because people can use Helium as an incubator and then move on, but that's another discussion
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:02 AM
I proposed a starting value of $40 that halves every halvening so today it’ll be $20 and then in august go down to $10
00:03
But it’s also just a minimum and we should encourage more burn. We lose that lever to encourage more burn if the devices goes away
Avatar
(part of) the real reason it is apparently hard to figure out who burned and who didn't on Solana (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:04 AM
Can you just set up a transaction that sends HNT to a burn wallet in exchange for the NFT that starts earning
Avatar
I thought it would be easy, but apparently it’s not
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:07 AM
I’ll defer to the thing I say when people say it’s not easy to do something on Solana. Sri over at Pollen figured it out and that guy was a moron
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:35 AM
Is the issue keeping tracking of the active devices? If so, why not just drop the active part and reward subDAOs for burning HNT
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can you just set up a transaction that sends HNT to a burn wallet in exchange for the NFT that starts earning
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 12:54 AM
Just thinking outside the box, if the subdao needs onboarding costs and the users won't pay it , why not assign some of the daos first rewards for paying, the sub Dao itself pays rather than the user or the manufacturer
00:55
I mean everyone pays that way, loosing rewards but it means no chasing of onboarding fees
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Just thinking outside the box, if the subdao needs onboarding costs and the users won't pay it , why not assign some of the daos first rewards for paying, the sub Dao itself pays rather than the user or the manufacturer
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:55 AM
Do you wanna fire up ChatGPT to write that HIP or should I?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 12:56 AM
My name's already on a hip that'll have weeks of discourse from packet stuffers trying to get me to take it down lol
🫂 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:57 AM
I’ll put my name on it and yell at people in the HIP channel if you want
💯 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 12:57 AM
That's already started btw the discourse from gamers
00:58
At the very start, nova didn't pay for onboarding
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:58 AM
Thankless job writing HIPs
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 12:58 AM
Much later, they burnt hnt to make up for it
00:58
Mobile could do the same
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:58 AM
Calchip burned the HNT
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 12:59 AM
Inc burnt as well I thought
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:59 AM
I know the big burn was calchip
00:59
The OGs may have been too
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 12:59 AM
Yeah
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:00 AM
Do we care if the HNT is burned from the treasury fund or if it’s purchased and then burned? (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:01 AM
It's just the fact it's paid for right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:01 AM
There are advantages to it being purchased and burned over just burned from the treasury
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:02 AM
Who does the purchase?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:02 AM
It’s more complicated for sure. I think the answer is your initial suggestion just trying to think through
01:03
Does someone have the keys to the treasury wallets to do that?
01:05
What if it costs 50% more to slash burn the onboarding
01:08
Hmmm one weakness is if someone wanted to pull a Panther X and rekey a bunch of devices you make that churn much more cost effective
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Thankless job writing HIPs
Know you may not have been serious but regardless the truth is that HIP author's aren't writing HIPS for the thanks we do it to improve the network
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:22 AM
He was serious, he knows how much grief he gives the author's 🤣
01:22
Max hates hips.. (running joke)
🤣 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:22 AM
I’ve been pretty vocal in the past that HIP writing shouldn’t be unpaid
🫡 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Max hates hips.. (running joke)
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:23 AM
Ironically I like both of yours
Avatar
Not to sound like a broken record, but we've been discussed the need for onboarding fees, as well as the who will pay it. @Max - Just Max last we spoke about this you mentioned you have vendor contacts that you'll reach out to. Have you had a chance?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:23 AM
I’ve said multiple times I needed a HIP defining the onboarding costs and who should pay
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve been pretty vocal in the past that HIP writing shouldn’t be unpaid
Personally, I wouldn't accept any payment for HIP-69, nor any future HIPs that I write.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also your model doesn’t take into account a third or fourth subDAO. This HIP hurts the scaling of Helium DAO
How?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve said multiple times I needed a HIP defining the onboarding costs and who should pay
Agreed but I'm asking you in regards to the who should pay it part
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:25 AM
Baicells
Avatar
And FFI as well as Bobcat?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:26 AM
No, they did the gateways that had a $40 onboard fee
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Just thinking outside the box, if the subdao needs onboarding costs and the users won't pay it , why not assign some of the daos first rewards for paying, the sub Dao itself pays rather than the user or the manufacturer
Brainstormer 03/30/2023 1:26 AM
so use the HNT in treasury? what would you use for the mobile protocol score for the HNT to flow into treasury ? I think this is a good idea
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No, they did the gateways that had a $40 onboard fee
Then why not mosolabs?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
How?
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:27 AM
Because no one wants to join as a subDAO under these rules. No one wants to have another network favored and getting special treatment. I have these discussions daily
🆗 1
Avatar
Avatar
John Mac
Then why not mosolabs?
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:27 AM
Them too.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:27 AM
Some going to flow in when data comes right? I was saying to divert x towards burn for onboarding existing
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Them too.
Glad we're on the same page 🙂👍🏻
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:28 AM
We can either do 1 for the A factor until the HNT is burned or 8,300 * the onboarding fee and lock redemptions until the debt is paid
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/30/2023 1:29 AM
data isn't going to come in for a while
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:29 AM
I think there should be some penalty for not getting your shit together and having to do it this way
Avatar
Avatar
John Mac
Personally, I wouldn't accept any payment for HIP-69, nor any future HIPs that I write.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:30 AM
That’s fine but plenty of Helium talent is getting poached by and paid by competitors (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That’s fine but plenty of Helium talent is getting poached by and paid by competitors (edited)
I hear you on that point 💯
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:31 AM
9 figure businesses shouldn’t rely on volunteers to run the business IMO
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/30/2023 1:32 AM
does the onboarding fee for all subdaos have to be the same?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:32 AM
No, in fact it’s the opposite
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
9 figure businesses shouldn’t rely on volunteers to run the business IMO
Agreed, but way outside my scope of even knowing how to begin doing anything about it. Maybe take it up with Nova 🤷🏻‍♂️ (edited)
01:34
Just realized that I only have about 3 hours left to sleep before work today 😴
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:35 AM
@BFGNeil - Trackpac.io if you wanna do most the writing I think your idea is significantly better than HIP-80
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:36 AM
i have a tonne on my plate, your turn
Avatar
ChatGPT-4 is the way
01:36
Gn/gm
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:36 AM
Ugh, I’ll learn markdown
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:36 AM
for what?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:37 AM
Can I send you a google doc and you put it in github?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:37 AM
just write evrything else i can probably help you with that?
01:37
ill submit it but it can be your hip
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
for what?
Writing the hip you're discussing
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:37 AM
Im just going to steal most of HIP-78 because that was good enough then add the part about slashing to burn
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/30/2023 1:38 AM
and lower the onboarding fee
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:39 AM
Absolute nonsense and author can pull a HIP then without mentioning it once in the HIP general channel just present a new HIP on the day of the community call and basically say fuck you, vote for this HIP in the next 18 days (edited)
👆 2
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Im just going to steal most of HIP-78 because that was good enough then add the part about slashing to burn
If you do, please include the sqrt around veHNT in the V-factor. That's important.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve said multiple times I needed a HIP defining the onboarding costs and who should pay
So why dont you write one instead of complaining that each HIP that others create isnt the one you think they should write.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
So why dont you write one instead of complaining that each HIP that others create isnt the one you think they should write.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:55 AM
Because HIPs are community based changes. Are you seriously saying I’m complaining, not making the HIPs better?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Because HIPs are community based changes. Are you seriously saying I’m complaining, not making the HIPs better?
In all the time you spend critiquing other HIPs you could have the one you want created.
💯 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:57 AM
I do agree, as you can see I said that to someone in general today (edited)
01:57
Before hips are submitted, discuss it in #hip-discussion (edited)
02:00
It forces you to cover everyone's points, not just your own thought chain
02:00
Elon had some great reasons against I missed on mine for example (edited)
🫂 1
🤝 1
Avatar
I am wondering: if we need the A factor in the subDAO utility scores or a special rule for IOT in the D factor (if there is no A factor) does that mean the V component doesn't do the job it is hoped to be doing? (Which would be: being a valid indicator for future potential value of a subDAO, thus directing enough HNT to the subDAO until data revenue (= realized potential value) is high enough to sustain hardware buildout/upkeep? (edited)
02:03
Really an open question I don't have the answer for.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
In all the time you spend critiquing other HIPs you could have the one you want created.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 2:03 AM
I don’t want to write a HIP. This is volunteer work for me. Other companies pay me to do their version of HIPs.
02:04
Im happy to contribute ideas and point out flaws but I don’t know how to write in markdown and I don’t care to learn
😬 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 2:04 AM
Just write in the format on word
02:04
You send me a block of text with none of the headings 😉 (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 2:05 AM
Like honestly, you’re going to sit there collecting a paycheck then tell people they need to do more free work?
😏 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I am wondering: if we need the A factor in the subDAO utility scores or a special rule for IOT in the D factor (if there is no A factor) does that mean the V component doesn't do the job it is hoped to be doing? (Which would be: being a valid indicator for future potential value of a subDAO, thus directing enough HNT to the subDAO until data revenue (= realized potential value) is high enough to sustain hardware buildout/upkeep? (edited)
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 2:10 AM
I think the answer is we don’t know and we won’t know for a month or two until it becomes more clear how much veHNT there is and how people delegate it.
🆗 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
So why dont you write one instead of complaining that each HIP that others create isnt the one you think they should write.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 2:16 AM
You’re replying to a message referencing a discussion that was had with Mobile working group and the inability to come up with a number within the group that we could then present to the community, by the way. Absolutely ridiculous I’ve been discussing this HIP and discussing better alternatives on and off for 14 hours and this is your take away.
Avatar
Btw, I use that "🆗" button when I want to show that I have read a post (and are thankful for the answer) but can't or don't want to say whether I agree or disagree with the content. (The 👍 risks imo additionally being potentially misinterpreted as agreement). Wonder if others read that ok button the same or as something awkward (like e.g. approval of the post). (edited)
👀 1
✅ 1
🆗 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
If you do, please include the sqrt around veHNT in the V-factor. That's important.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 2:26 AM
To this point, I’m not going to touch the V-factor. I don’t know enough to say either way if we need the square root piece so I’m just going to keep all the roots the same and solve for the A issues
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
To this point, I’m not going to touch the V-factor. I don’t know enough to say either way if we need the square root piece so I’m just going to keep all the roots the same and solve for the A issues
Ok, I guess me and others will bring it up again, once/if we see that proposal and we all can continue the discussion then. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
i don't see why its relevant that 5g is limited to US.
plainsimpletech 03/30/2023 2:40 AM
Because there is not the equivalent mobile spectrum available in other countries.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Anything that is useful and leads to data credit spending is win win win.
plainsimpletech 03/30/2023 2:43 AM
Don't disagree however where it is a limited participation model due to technical regulatory restrictions across the glode then it shouldn't be that one type of network canibalises another (I realise that I am not quite stating my postion well here).
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You’re replying to a message referencing a discussion that was had with Mobile working group and the inability to come up with a number within the group that we could then present to the community, by the way. Absolutely ridiculous I’ve been discussing this HIP and discussing better alternatives on and off for 14 hours and this is your take away.
Ive not been following the MOBILE PoC WG discussions for quite a while now. And I've been discussing this Score/Onboarding problem for months trying to get a resolution for MOBILE even though I have 0 investment in MOBILE. I dont have any objections to Radios being the onboardable device. But to implement that is going to require a lot of new code for hotspot makers, radio makers and blockchain devs. And a HIP that covers onboardng fee calculations that sum up rather than multiply. And someone has to agree to write all this or pay someone else to write it as its not free work.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Ive not been following the MOBILE PoC WG discussions for quite a while now. And I've been discussing this Score/Onboarding problem for months trying to get a resolution for MOBILE even though I have 0 investment in MOBILE. I dont have any objections to Radios being the onboardable device. But to implement that is going to require a lot of new code for hotspot makers, radio makers and blockchain devs. And a HIP that covers onboardng fee calculations that sum up rather than multiply. And someone has to agree to write all this or pay someone else to write it as its not free work.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:23 AM
Yea I hear you. Then any attempts to do anything get met with “well there’s no veMOBILE so you can’t do it.” On the code side, wouldn’t Nova take on that responsibility since they were given a grant of 15B Mobile to get the subDAO ready to go live? I can’t imagine it’s that crazy of an engineering lift if nova runs the SaS and knows which radio serial numbers are connected to which gateways. Then you just mint NFTs corresponding to the radio with a mint price equal to the onboard burn.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea I hear you. Then any attempts to do anything get met with “well there’s no veMOBILE so you can’t do it.” On the code side, wouldn’t Nova take on that responsibility since they were given a grant of 15B Mobile to get the subDAO ready to go live? I can’t imagine it’s that crazy of an engineering lift if nova runs the SaS and knows which radio serial numbers are connected to which gateways. Then you just mint NFTs corresponding to the radio with a mint price equal to the onboard burn.
At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee And the chainvar that A uses is the same one that the app uses to onboard future hotspots. Need one to be changed and currently you change both. With audited code - Im not sure at this late stage if we want to change code, just change variables. Noah isnt looking forward to changing that code structure to use radios instead of hotspots, or to sum radios connected to hotspots. Then we gotta think about WIFI devices within MOBILE subDAO, same onboard fee, same data trasfer cost rate as 5G-CBRS hotspots or should it be another subDAO for them. DAO Utility score does need a rework but Im not sure anything suggested so far is going to work for everything so its gotta be post migration I am assuming. I just wanted to get MOBILE off A = 1 or everyone agrees that it is 1 tlll a later HIP or more likely 2.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee And the chainvar that A uses is the same one that the app uses to onboard future hotspots. Need one to be changed and currently you change both. With audited code - Im not sure at this late stage if we want to change code, just change variables. Noah isnt looking forward to changing that code structure to use radios instead of hotspots, or to sum radios connected to hotspots. Then we gotta think about WIFI devices within MOBILE subDAO, same onboard fee, same data trasfer cost rate as 5G-CBRS hotspots or should it be another subDAO for them. DAO Utility score does need a rework but Im not sure anything suggested so far is going to work for everything so its gotta be post migration I am assuming. I just wanted to get MOBILE off A = 1 or everyone agrees that it is 1 tlll a later HIP or more likely 2.
At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee
That earned token anytime in the past or only in the (defined) recent past (="active" hotspots). I thought, the latter?
(edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee
That earned token anytime in the past or only in the (defined) recent past (="active" hotspots). I thought, the latter?
(edited)
Yeah I didnt define the period
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
At the moment A = summed no of hotspots that earned token x chainvar of onboarding fee And the chainvar that A uses is the same one that the app uses to onboard future hotspots. Need one to be changed and currently you change both. With audited code - Im not sure at this late stage if we want to change code, just change variables. Noah isnt looking forward to changing that code structure to use radios instead of hotspots, or to sum radios connected to hotspots. Then we gotta think about WIFI devices within MOBILE subDAO, same onboard fee, same data trasfer cost rate as 5G-CBRS hotspots or should it be another subDAO for them. DAO Utility score does need a rework but Im not sure anything suggested so far is going to work for everything so its gotta be post migration I am assuming. I just wanted to get MOBILE off A = 1 or everyone agrees that it is 1 tlll a later HIP or more likely 2.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:50 AM
Im fine with this outcome too. My biggest issue was passing a HIP with a bunch of flaws quickly so that it can be done before migration.
03:51
Stupid question but when did epochs go from 30 blocks to one day?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Stupid question but when did epochs go from 30 blocks to one day?
Part of implementation of Solana migration? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Stupid question but when did epochs go from 30 blocks to one day?
Ask Noah or Abhay for when and reason. Solana's are 2 days. He might have mentioned something in last AMA or WG call I forget but probably a programming reason.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Stupid question but when did epochs go from 30 blocks to one day?
Found it, HIP 77:
Avatar
Solana is based on 432000 slots actually, but it’s roughly 2 days.
04:07
But I think daily epochs make sense, it reduces variability and is needed for MOBILE anyway
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Solana is based on 432000 slots actually, but it’s roughly 2 days.
I liked that it reduced variability.
Avatar
GM! I’ve only skimmed the upscroll. Sorry this HIP got posted so suddenly. Until the weekend this was going to be a revision of HIP-78. JMF’s contribution of the square root to the V factor just dropped a few days ago, and that pushed it over the edge to where Valerie decided it needs to be a new HIP entirely. The missing onboarding fees for MOBILE are what got all this started, and as @waveform says, he has been haranguing us about that since October. We’ve just all been slacking off and not doing anything about it for months, myself included. That’s why this is dropping here at the last moment. It's great people are engaged and want to contribute, but I’m not sure dueling HIPs are the most effective method. Writing a HIP is quite a lot of work, with or without ChatGPT. Why not present just the proposed alternative DAO Utility Score formula here, so we can discuss it? And it would help to have some rough modelling of the effects, like what I presented in the last pinned post. I do think the square root of the V factor (veHNT delegation) is important, as outlined. That was proposed by JMF, and let’s remember he is the one who brought us HIP-20, which is what took us to our first large-scale deployment. I haven’t seen his models in detail, but the game theory makes sense. So, I’m interested to see alternative proposals to what we put forward in HIP-80. Leaving HIP-51 as it is would be a bad choice IMO, and let’s not forget that we do need some resolution of the missing MOBILE onboarding fees. Keeping the A factor in the Score means somebody needs to pay them. Gotta run again unfortunately.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Sorry to late night tag but you are online. @valerie is this HIP considered critical and needs to happen pre-migration or is 77 the only critical HIP remaining?
i just saw this. im not sure if its critical yet. still assessing that myself. at the moment it looks like it would make more sense for it to happen prior to migration because the implementation would be easier but it looks like a change that could be made later too.
Avatar
Avatar
valerie
i just saw this. im not sure if its critical yet. still assessing that myself. at the moment it looks like it would make more sense for it to happen prior to migration because the implementation would be easier but it looks like a change that could be made later too.
IMO if a there is to be a change to the DAO Utility Score, we should decide it before transition if at all possible. HNT holders need to make decisions about HNT lockup ASAP in order to take advantage of the 3x landrush bonus. The Score is an important consideration for those decisions. And depending on their strategies, it could be jarring to find the Score changed later after they have already locked their positions.
👍 1
Avatar
. We’ve known about the issue of the missing MOBILE onboarding fees, which led up to HIP-78, since October. HIP-78 was predicated on the idea that somebody would pay the missing fees, but nobody has come forward, so we need an alternative solution to that. That’s how we got to HIP-80. In addition, the change to the V factor of the Score that @JMF proposed is very important to anybody considering HNT lockup. That in particular is a major reason to decide this before transition. So let’s discuss any and all proposals of how to solve the outstanding issues (see the Motivation section of HIP-80), but kicking the HIP-51 can down the road is dangerous in my view. I don’t see that other solutions are just going to appear out of thin air. I haven’t seen JMF’s modelling yet, but I trust him if he says the existing Score from HIP-51 risks flatlining an otherwise productive subDAO because of misaligned incentives.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 9:57 AM
It’s just difficult to not go the competing HIP route when suggestions are being made and ignored
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s just difficult to not go the competing HIP route when suggestions are being made and ignored
I was out of the channel last night. I re-read things earlier, but I didn’t really pick up a concrete suggestion. Can you ELI5 what alternative Score you are proposing?
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:29 AM
Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.
10:34
Solves the most pressing issue of MOBILE and finds a payer. We can always tweak the V score if it’s an issue in the real world.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.
I don’t understand how it’s the same Score if you change the definition of the A factor. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:35 AM
It’s still VDA
10:36
But otherwise, no it’s not the same score. The A definition changes
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
IMO if a there is to be a change to the DAO Utility Score, we should decide it before transition if at all possible. HNT holders need to make decisions about HNT lockup ASAP in order to take advantage of the 3x landrush bonus. The Score is an important consideration for those decisions. And depending on their strategies, it could be jarring to find the Score changed later after they have already locked their positions.
Yes, if it influences how much HNT to lock-up for how long. Not sure if changes in the subDAO utility score affect this much though, as it affects distribution between subDAOs and delegation percentages of veHNT can be changed every epoch accordingly. Am in favor to have this implemented before the transition if it can be done safely in the time remaining. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.
You talking about both subDAOs here for $20 now?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.
Could you present the actual complete definition? I’m not sure I understand your suggestion.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
You talking about both subDAOs here for $20 now?
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:36 AM
That’s just the minimum. IOT can stay at $40 if they want. It’ll be $10 by August though
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Could you present the actual complete definition? I’m not sure I understand your suggestion.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:38 AM
A=Total DC burn over the life of the subDAO for onboarding related costs. This includes any location assert fees or future secondary onboarding fees a subDAO may define.
Avatar
It sounds like to intend to count location assertion fees (“reasserts”). That’s a change from HIP-51, right, or do you interpret HIP-51 to include location assertion fees in the A factor?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It sounds like to intend to count location assertion fees (“reasserts”). That’s a change from HIP-51, right, or do you interpret HIP-51 to include location assertion fees in the A factor?
Some do, some dont 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:38 AM
I think 51 is pretty ambiguous. Some of the calcs referenced $50 per device and others referenced $40
10:40
I’d argue you need $50 worth of burn for an IOT hotspot to earn so I personally feel it should count
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
A=Total DC burn over the life of the subDAO for onboarding related costs. This includes any location assert fees or future secondary onboarding fees a subDAO may define.
Even in the hypothetical case that all devices did go offline right after paying their fees? (Meaning: activity/inactivity being irrelevant for your suggestion?)
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:41 AM
I understand that scenario could potentially exist but they burned the HNT so yes
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
A=Total DC burn over the life of the subDAO for onboarding related costs. This includes any location assert fees or future secondary onboarding fees a subDAO may define.
So as Siegfried says, this would change the definition from “active Hotspots” to “total historical Hotspots”. Correct? Taking the count for IOT from 400,000 to 1,000,000. Right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:41 AM
Yes
Avatar
Are you counting that as a linear factor? You didn’t mention the fourth root.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:42 AM
I’ve been told it’s a huge engineering lift to associate onboard costs with single hotspots then calculate if they are online or not.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Are you counting that as a linear factor? You didn’t mention the fourth root.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:42 AM
Still a fourth root. Sorry, that’s the piece about calc stays the same, could have been more clear.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
A=Total DC burn over the life of the subDAO for onboarding related costs. This includes any location assert fees or future secondary onboarding fees a subDAO may define.
This would change the A from a calculated number to a historical summed number - needs a database table
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:43 AM
Isn’t that significantly easier than constantly calculating?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve been told it’s a huge engineering lift to associate onboard costs with single hotspots then calculate if they are online or not.
Correct. The current implementation is not able to calculate different onboarding fees for each active Hotspot. Known quantities are number of active Hotspots and of course what onboarding fees were charged at various times.
10:44
How do you count Data-Only Hotspots? Their onboarding fee is $10.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:45 AM
By the amount burned so $10
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Correct. The current implementation is not able to calculate different onboarding fees for each active Hotspot. Known quantities are number of active Hotspots and of course what onboarding fees were charged at various times.
There is no history of the paid fees. its just online and earned x current onboarding chair var
10:45
Data Onlys are wrongly counted at $40 at moment, not $10
Avatar
As happy as I am about HNT/DC burn, HNT/DC burn in itself it is not valuable, as far as I can see. We want to incentivice the buildout of useful/valuable coverage. Wouldn't that encompass somehow taking in account how many devices are active? (Mind: I tend to be in favor for dropping the A term completely, as I don't say what exactly it is incentivizing. Happy to learn, though.) I understand that the V factor measures expectations/estimates of total value (current and future, not yet realized) of what a subDAO is offering, and the D factor realized current utility/value of a subDAO. Only if that is somehow not a valid measure of utility / misses something that should be measured / incentivize the full realization of a subDAOs potential value, would I say that we need another factor in the formula. Is this the case? And if yes, why? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:46 AM
We can’t tally up the amount spent by maker wallets?
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
There is no history of the paid fees. its just online and earned x current onboarding chair var
you would have to make a data crawler to go back and find all the fees and then constantly scan periodically
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
There is no history of the paid fees. its just online and earned x current onboarding chair var
Are they affected by the proposed halvening of onboarding fees?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
As happy as I am about HNT/DC burn, HNT/DC burn in itself it is not valuable, as far as I can see. We want to incentivice the buildout of useful/valuable coverage. Wouldn't that encompass somehow taking in account how many devices are active? (Mind: I tend to be in favor for dropping the A term completely, as I don't say what exactly it is incentivizing. Happy to learn, though.) I understand that the V factor measures expectations/estimates of total value (current and future, not yet realized) of what a subDAO is offering, and the D factor realized current utility/value of a subDAO. Only if that is somehow not a valid measure of utility / misses something that should be measured / incentivize the full realization of a subDAOs potential value, would I say that we need another factor in the formula. Is this the case? And if yes, why? (edited)
the only other reasoning for this is to stop bad faith DAO's in the future
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Are they affected by the proposed halvening of onboarding fees?
Not my suggestion so cant answer
🫡 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We can’t tally up the amount spent by maker wallets?
We could, but how do we tie up what came out of a maker wallet with the 44% of online hotspots
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
the only other reasoning for this is to stop bad faith DAO's in the future
Can you help me understand why this risk exists and why/how an onboarding fee would stop this?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Are they affected by the proposed halvening of onboarding fees?
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:48 AM
Just to be clear, not a proposed halvening of onboard fees, halvening of minimum onboarding fees
10:50
I’m also not married to that idea. Just figured it fit to have some reason determining the minimum
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.
So how does this solve the problem that MOBILE has not paid any fees to onboard its existing Hotspots?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 10:52 AM
Slash em
Avatar
What does that mean?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 10:52 AM
When iot launched nova didn't pay fees they burnt it later, slash rewards to the dao until the amount is covered I think is what max is suggesting
alwaysthinking 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Can you help me understand why this risk exists and why/how an onboarding fee would stop this?
I am not the origin of this but basically if there were no fees you could game the score by essentially just pumping data through you self taking the hnt that comes from the score calculation and steal possible a significant portion of the emissions
Avatar
"Slashing” normally means to take away tokens that are in an account. So I’m uncertain what is being proposed.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 10:53 AM
From the mobile treasury, slash until minimum is covered
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So how does this solve the problem that MOBILE has not paid any fees to onboard its existing Hotspots?
It doesn't, I guess, but it could be combined with the suggestion of BFGNeil to let the subDAO treasury pay the missing fees if one would want to go that way (not saying I would or wouldnt)? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
"Slashing” normally means to take away tokens that are in an account. So I’m uncertain what is being proposed.
Ya I like the idea of bonding a certain amount like 3 x emmisions? which would be about 150k HNT and hope that auditing would catch it quickly
Avatar
The existing implementation does not actually implement slashing. That was not considered to be a priority item. So we couldn’t actually slash now. I presume a slashing function needs to pass audit, etc. So that is not an immediate option.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:58 AM
We never built a slashing function? That’s like the one thing HeliumDAO can do to keep subDAOs in line
Avatar
It is thought that they won’t dance out of line until later. 😉
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 10:59 AM
So tempted to start a Dao now for no particular reason , there's no slashing
10:59
Lol
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I am not the origin of this but basically if there were no fees you could game the score by essentially just pumping data through you self taking the hnt that comes from the score calculation and steal possible a significant portion of the emissions
Even if that kind of gaming worked (not sure it does, don't understand the mechanics enough atm), not sure if needing to pay onboarding fee really helped with that. Wouldn't it just set the threshold higher above which it would be lucrative?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So tempted to start a Dao now for no particular reason , there's no slashing
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 10:59 AM
Mapper DAO has entered the chat
partyparrot 1
😀 2
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So tempted to start a Dao now for no particular reason , there's no slashing
Quite true! OTOH I imagine it would take a good while to implement a subDAO. Perhaps slashing can be built by then. 😆
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 11:02 AM
In the meantime can’t some reserve be built in that effectively locks that amount of HNT
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 11:03 AM
My suggestion this morning was if the onboarding fees are an issue (seems like no one wants to pay) take it from the subdaos treasury seems to be an option
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
In the meantime can’t some reserve be built in that effectively locks that amount of HNT
It sounds like you’re proposing some core smart contract functionality. Best ask Noah whether that’s practical.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
My suggestion this morning was if the onboarding fees are an issue (seems like no one wants to pay) take it from the subdaos treasury seems to be an option
Also if I were a participant in MOBILE I don’t think I’d like that. You could also just say I may not participate until I backpay the fees. The effect is similar.
👍 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 11:13 AM
I kinda thought of it not like taking all rewards but x of what was coming in to go towards it until it's clear
valerie pinned a message to this channel. 03/30/2023 11:27 AM
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It sounds like you’re proposing some core smart contract functionality. Best ask Noah whether that’s practical.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:37 PM
The network can’t operate based on “ask the firm that Helium Foundation acquired if they can be bothered to do it”
12:38
Beyond the scope of this HIP but that shouldn’t be how it operates
12:40
We wouldn’t need a that to be implement via smart contract for MOBILE. Foundation should still hold enough MOBILE to have the same effect
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 03/30/2023 12:56 PM
Would it be possible to identify a diversity analysis of hexes (accumulating to diversity of total network) for DC burned, coverage asserted or verified, and such to influence this utility score? Plus a decaying launch curve to temporarily boost subDAO launches?
12:57
The metric I have difficulty with is device count... Not sure of the utility of a count. It's a metric, but I don't feel it's a metric that has enough weight to it. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:58 PM
Better to think of the metric as a DC burn for onboarding metric.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 03/30/2023 12:58 PM
Hence why proven coverage (aided by DC burn evident in that hex) would help the scoring.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:59 PM
I don’t think Helium DAO should get that granular with what the subDAOs do
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Better to think of the metric as a DC burn for onboarding metric.
EdB-charlietango 03/30/2023 12:59 PM
That's just potential of utility, potential of coverage, etc.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 12:59 PM
It’s basically a way to reward capex before there is revenue
13:00
Assuming subDAOs use onboarding fees as a reasonable proxy for capex
13:00
The A incentives them to do that
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t think Helium DAO should get that granular with what the subDAOs do
EdB-charlietango 03/30/2023 1:02 PM
If all tokens go back to HNT, I would say there's a dependence there that is necessary for the integrity of the entire system.
13:02
Hrm... Device onboarding rate might be a good metric to pull into that decaying launch support curve. (edited)
13:07
What does DNP stand for?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 1:09 PM
Decentralised network protocol
🙏 1
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
If all tokens go back to HNT, I would say there's a dependence there that is necessary for the integrity of the entire system.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:20 PM
Disagree. Helium DAO cares about token burn, facilitating token burn, and being the police of subDAO wide gaming.
13:21
Solana doesnt meddle in the affairs of SPLs, for example
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Disagree. Helium DAO cares about token burn, facilitating token burn, and being the police of subDAO wide gaming.
EdB-charlietango 03/30/2023 1:27 PM
You just agreed with me. We said the same thing.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s basically a way to reward capex before there is revenue
I thought about this last night. Slept on it even. About giving the IoT subDAO a chance to survive. When HIP51 was passed, this was the promise and intended plan, that IoT would initially get the lionshare of initial HNT into their treasury. The HIP passed with the communities approval. I conclude that giving them some protection is the right thing to do. No rug pull. I'm on board for the 50 floor for IoT. (edited)
👆🏼 1
13:46
It further communicates that we are not abandoning IoT.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I thought about this last night. Slept on it even. About giving the IoT subDAO a chance to survive. When HIP51 was passed, this was the promise and intended plan, that IoT would initially get the lionshare of initial HNT into their treasury. The HIP passed with the communities approval. I conclude that giving them some protection is the right thing to do. No rug pull. I'm on board for the 50 floor for IoT. (edited)
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:47 PM
The HIP passed a year ago and in that time IOT got 100% of the rewards. How long of a runway does it need? Also in that time IOTEX launched a similar model and has upwards of 15 projects that could have been subDAOs moving over there.
Avatar
In my home, I truly try to keep my word. Even if that word was given a year ago.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:49 PM
Do you want more HNT or more dollars?
Avatar
I stand opposed to changing what was promised to the community. We don't rug pull here.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Do you want more HNT or more dollars?
Everyone wants to moon. It is projected that Mobile will reach an equivalent DAO utility score in no time. Right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:51 PM
We have no idea what MOBILE will do
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/30/2023 1:52 PM
we change things all the time, that's what hips are for (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We have no idea what MOBILE will do
lifetime Price fixation for beta rollout seems pretty attractive to me.
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/30/2023 1:53 PM
i agree that IoT needs to have some sort of protection, but im at odds with the floor and the length of time
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:54 PM
Updating the A score as I proposed protects the DC burn the IOT has already done but also gives new subDAOs the ability to compete on a level playing field
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/30/2023 1:54 PM
i'm also worried that Mobile subdao will die before it has a chance to get off the ground. we want to build the network to bring in the HNT but the hnt emission might be a turn off for builders
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 1:54 PM
Also let’s not forget like 60% of the HNT that will ever exist was emitted to LoRaWAN people.
13:56
It’s a completely different landscape than it was when 51 was proposed. Projects we thought would be knocking down the door to get into the helium ecosystem aren’t.
Avatar
From what I can see, the number of crypto projects being launched in general is down, perhaps due to the current bear market.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 2:32 PM
DePIN space is booming, many are in stealth or 6 months out from their TGE but they are there and none are choosing Helium
14:33
Literally what I do for a living is working with early stage projects trying to disrupt a web2 industry using web3.
14:35
To be fair, I don't know if the proposals I've laid out are going to be enough to move the needle enough for them to want to join Helium as a subDAO but the feedback on worries about the main DAO having too much overreach is pretty standard feedback when it gets discussed
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Keep the same score. Create a minimum onboard fee (I suggested $40 halving with the current halving putting us at $20 today and $10 in August) then slashing the treasury fund of any subDAOs (in this case MOBILE) that haven’t onboarded the minimum amount per device. The A score would just become a total burned DC for things like onboarding and reasserts over the life of the subDAO and would remove the overly complex aspect of counting devices online and figuring out their onboard fees.
So let me try to summarize Max’ proposal, as I want to make sure I’m following correctly. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1091051599197114378 and the following discussion. It would use a Score that is similar to the Score defined in HIP-51, except that the A factor is different. The A factor of a subDAO would be the fourth root of the sum of all onboarding and location assertion (and similar) fees burned by the subDAO. So, as a change from HIP-51, it counts Hotspots which are offline, or roughly 1,000,000 Hotspots in IOT rather than 400,000 Hotspots per HIP-51. It counts location assertion fees as well, providing an additional advantage to IOT compared to HIP-51. It also avoids certain implementation difficulties of HIP-51 related to different onboarding fees, such as $10 Data-Only Hotspots, assuming it is practical to keep a running score of onboarding fees. (I’d suggest discussing that with Noah.) However, the 10,000 existing MOBILE Hotspots still haven’t burned any onboarding fees, so the A factor for MOBILE still launches at 1. One approach for obtaining the missing onboarding fees that has been proposed would be for the Helium DAO to slash them from the MOBILE treasury, which would affect both current and future MOBILE Hotspot owners equally. However, that won’t be possible right away, as it would require new smart contracts, which would have to pass audit, and also slashing itself is not implemented yet. So the postpayment of the missing onboarding fees for MOBILE would be delayed, and the A factor of MOBILE would remain at 1 (except as additional new Hotspots are onboarded) until some later date. The in the V factor, which JMF has proposed should urgently be changed to a square root of delegated veHNT, would remain a linear factor, which could dominate the Score of one subDAO with a single large delegation.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 2:57 PM
The only thing I'd add is if the subDAO has to be slashed to onboard, there is a penalty levied against that subDAO. Also a minimum onboard fee would be set. I've proposed $40 retroactive to August 1, 2019 with a halvening every 2 years. That would put the current fee at $20 and reduced to $10 on August 1, 2023. (edited)
15:00
On the fence if we want MOBILE to start with an A score of 1 or if we want to assume $20 per radio then slash after the fact. There is precedent for LoRa operating with a retroactive payment of DC so I think its fine to assume the HNT has been burned as of the go live date.
Avatar
It’s not clear to me what advantages theses change provides over the new, simpler DAO Utility Score proposed in HIP-80, and how it is better to keep the old V factor instead of changing to the new one advocated by @JMF. It would be good to see some modeling, similar to the rough example in my pinned post here, that would let us compare the results. Given the argument that Max’ proposal might be advantageous to new subDAOs, it would be good to see that modeled as well.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The only thing I'd add is if the subDAO has to be slashed to onboard, there is a penalty levied against that subDAO. Also a minimum onboard fee would be set. I've proposed $40 retroactive to August 1, 2019 with a halvening every 2 years. That would put the current fee at $20 and reduced to $10 on August 1, 2023. (edited)
I don’t understand the first sentence.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:01 PM
I have no strong opinion on the V factor. Interested to see JMF's model but I think we can sit back and see what the amount of veHNT that gets delegated will be before we jump to change it
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t understand the first sentence.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:03 PM
If a subDAO has to have its treasury fund slashed to pay for the onboarding, it should be done at a rate of 150% of the onboard value. ie, if MOBILE decides $50 then $75 worth of HNT gets slashed for each radio. if MOBILE doesn't make a decision $30 per radio gets slashed ($20 minimum times 50%) but the subdao doesn't get credit for its penalty burn.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It’s not clear to me what advantages theses change provides over the new, simpler DAO Utility Score proposed in HIP-80, and how it is better to keep the old V factor instead of changing to the new one advocated by @JMF. It would be good to see some modeling, similar to the rough example in my pinned post here, that would let us compare the results. Given the argument that Max’ proposal might be advantageous to new subDAOs, it would be good to see that modeled as well.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:05 PM
We allow every subDAO to have a chance to get credit for growing a network to a size that LoRa does. In the proposed HIP only LoRa gets a boost for building a large network.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I have no strong opinion on the V factor. Interested to see JMF's model but I think we can sit back and see what the amount of veHNT that gets delegated will be before we jump to change it
Changing the V factor after the end of landrush is a big issue for those who have locked their HNT for this purpose. That should be settled before landrush begins.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Changing the V factor after the end of landrush is a big issue for those who have locked their HNT for this purpose. That should be settled before landrush begins.
2nd that we can not change things after the fact thats like tilting the field
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:06 PM
You still get 6% of the DNTs regardless of the amount of HNT in the treasury
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We allow every subDAO to have a chance to get credit for growing a network to a size that LoRa does. In the proposed HIP only LoRa gets a boost for building a large network.
That’s confusing IMO. And remember that we don’t have the ability to slash at all now..
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You still get 6% of the DNTs regardless of the amount of HNT in the treasury
I think changing economic factors on which economic decisions are based, after people have locked their tokens, is problematic.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:07 PM
How is it confusing for large capex outlays to be rewarded the same as other capex outlays
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think changing economic factors on which economic decisions are based, after people have locked their tokens, is problematic.
thats illegal in most causes for businesses
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We allow every subDAO to have a chance to get credit for growing a network to a size that LoRa does. In the proposed HIP only LoRa gets a boost for building a large network.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think changing economic factors on which economic decisions are based, after people have locked their tokens, is problematic.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:08 PM
Its not different than changing the DAO utility score in any other way
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
How is it confusing for large capex outlays to be rewarded the same as other capex outlays
not many people understand these functions the point is to make it simple enough that people aren't confused about what they do and what they get
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:09 PM
Yea, i disagree with your "founders bonus" when 5G news drove the economic build out of LoRa
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
How is it confusing for large capex outlays to be rewarded the same as other capex outlays
It’s not “the same”, it’s different. As an example, it completely changes the incentives around locking a significant portion of total HNT supply in order to be able to dominate the Score.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:10 PM
thats not what capex is
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Its not different than changing the DAO utility score in any other way
Exactly. Which is why I believe it would be good to decide these things before transition. (Speaking to the question @valerie is considering whether this is an “urgent” matter.)
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:12 PM
If a network puts out $1B worth of hardware and burns $100M of HNT to onboard those devices, is that not valuable?
15:13
Why would any subDAO pay more than the minimum to onboard if there is no incentive to do it?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
not many people understand these functions the point is to make it simple enough that people aren't confused about what they do and what they get
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:14 PM
which people are you referring to?
Avatar
Sorry, I have to go now. Will check in again tomorrow morning. Let me say that if you would like to propose a different Score than what @rawrmaan, JMF and I are proposing in HIP-80, I do suggest you provide some modeled results, and explain how the numbers support your proposal. I really don’t see yet what advantages your proposal has. It is, however, a lot more complicated, and depends on several things (such as new smart contracts and slashing) that aren’t currently available.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
which people are you referring to?
users and stakers
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Sorry, I have to go now. Will check in again tomorrow morning. Let me say that if you would like to propose a different Score than what @rawrmaan, JMF and I are proposing in HIP-80, I do suggest you provide some modeled results, and explain how the numbers support your proposal. I really don’t see yet what advantages your proposal has. It is, however, a lot more complicated, and depends on several things (such as new smart contracts and slashing) that aren’t currently available.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:16 PM
I don't understand how you are missing the fact that no one will want to join a network if there is blatant favortism towards another business. My proposal is more fair and based on DC burn rather than putting a finger in the wind and deciding $75,000 feels like a good number and 2027 seems like a good year
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
users and stakers
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 3:19 PM
users?
15:25
I’m also very confused on the reasoning to rush the update to V score. You say JMF says it’s imperative but you haven’t seen the models. Is the expectation that I commit to including the change to V score without seeing any data suggesting it’s a problem?
Avatar
Oh having vehnt being linear is pretty noticeable even in devnet. veHNT decides what goes to each subdao far more than anything else
16:07
So much so that it could be a risk that everyone just piles on vehnt to a single subdao that already has the most vehnt
16:08
I've done some back of the napkin modeling myself and I agree with JMF's evaluation that it is imperative. At least that we look at it again. End of the day, I just implement what the DAO wants. But it's good to flag things that may be concerning.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:09 PM
It’s gotta hit some level of diminishing returns though if you’re limited to 6% of the DNT
Avatar
Right, I don't think it causes heaps more people to delegate that wouldn't have otherwise. I think it just causes delegators to always choose the subdao with highest delegation. Which isn't what you want (probably)?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:11 PM
I would think if a large percentage of veHNT goes to one subDAO there’s incentive to delegate towards the other subDAOs to get a bigger percent of those other DNT pools
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Right, I don't think it causes heaps more people to delegate that wouldn't have otherwise. I think it just causes delegators to always choose the subdao with highest delegation. Which isn't what you want (probably)?
right you don't want to have the ship sink problem there need to be equilibrium thats simple by just having 6% of rewards and then a significant level of rewards going to that sub DAO
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:12 PM
If it’s a huge gaming vector we can always fix it. We have the solution ready to go and just rush it to vote
Avatar
I don't think it's that simple. Once the formula is out there and active, changing it is going to be very hard because it likely favors one group over another. And the group in favor is going to vote very hard against change.
16:13
Much better we get it right, or as close as possible to right, the first time.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:14 PM
that’s kinda the point of veHNT though. If you vote against the best interest of HNT everyone else can exit before you can
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Much better we get it right, or as close as possible to right, the first time.
I am worried that there will be a problem because mobile at first wont be moving data which means that it will be quite low at first for quite some time
Avatar
Yeah. I mean from a technical perspective, which I think that's really my role to provide, HIP-80 as written is great. It reduces complexity by a lot and removes an entire oracle and separate protocol. As an engineer, I also dislike ambiguity. So having something called "devices" that isn't well defined is not something I love. The change is just deleting some code and changing vehnt to sqrt (a one line change).
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Yeah. I mean from a technical perspective, which I think that's really my role to provide, HIP-80 as written is great. It reduces complexity by a lot and removes an entire oracle and separate protocol. As an engineer, I also dislike ambiguity. So having something called "devices" that isn't well defined is not something I love. The change is just deleting some code and changing vehnt to sqrt (a one line change).
I always favor simplicity
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Yeah. I mean from a technical perspective, which I think that's really my role to provide, HIP-80 as written is great. It reduces complexity by a lot and removes an entire oracle and separate protocol. As an engineer, I also dislike ambiguity. So having something called "devices" that isn't well defined is not something I love. The change is just deleting some code and changing vehnt to sqrt (a one line change).
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:20 PM
So I guess what will become 81, uses DC burn as the deciding factor for devices. Clears up all of the ambiguity and creates an even playing field for new subDAOs rather than using arbitrary values that favors one subDAO (edited)
Avatar
@ferebee @JMF . Throwing an idea out there. When we were first considering HIP51, we considered an award bucket to encourage new subDAOs to join. What if we consider a time limited floor of say 25 to be given to any new subDAOs upon entrance into the Helium ecosystem? We could say, IoT got a floor of 50, because they were first, but all future ones can get a 25 floor for 4 years. Is this a crazy thought? Some claim that other projects are not excited to join Helium, . . .might that entice them? (edited)
16:29
One could claim that it is equivalent to them, meaning the future additional subDAO, since the Mobile subDAO didn't accept a floor. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:31 PM
I’ll make so many subDAOs if I can get a floor of $37k/month for 4 years for each of them (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ll make so many subDAOs if I can get a floor of $37k/month for 4 years for each of them (edited)
Gotta be voted in though right?
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Gotta be voted in though right?
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:33 PM
Oh I can get so many shitty DePIN projects with no path to actual revenue to collect its HNT in exchange for nothing
16:34
The value LoRa added was the $500M in DC burn. That’s what we want to reward. Not being first
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh I can get so many shitty DePIN projects with no path to actual revenue to collect its HNT in exchange for nothing
Do you have any thoughts on how to make it work? Try wearing a different hat for just a moment. I'm just throwing an idea out there.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
@ferebee @JMF . Throwing an idea out there. When we were first considering HIP51, we considered an award bucket to encourage new subDAOs to join. What if we consider a time limited floor of say 25 to be given to any new subDAOs upon entrance into the Helium ecosystem? We could say, IoT got a floor of 50, because they were first, but all future ones can get a 25 floor for 4 years. Is this a crazy thought? Some claim that other projects are not excited to join Helium, . . .might that entice them? (edited)
well the floor is one off idea not sure that should happen but I am trying to imagine coming up with a new subdao and simulating wht happens
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Do you have any thoughts on how to make it work? Try wearing a different hat for just a moment. I'm just throwing an idea out there.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:37 PM
Like how to make the gaming the system work? Just collect the HNT into the treasury fund because of the boosted rewards then exchange the DNTs you invented for the HNT, rinse and repeat across multiple industries
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Like how to make the gaming the system work? Just collect the HNT into the treasury fund because of the boosted rewards then exchange the DNTs you invented for the HNT, rinse and repeat across multiple industries
Wrong hat Max. lol. Gotta take a step back sometimes and look at things from different angles. Try thinking, . . . knowing that the risk of gaming is there, how do I prevent bad actors from taking advantage of this incentive? For example, they could post up some cash for the option of having a floor. Only to be released upon making their numbers. I'm not saying that this is the right way to go, . . . its just a thought exercise for now.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Wrong hat Max. lol. Gotta take a step back sometimes and look at things from different angles. Try thinking, . . . knowing that the risk of gaming is there, how do I prevent bad actors from taking advantage of this incentive? For example, they could post up some cash for the option of having a floor. Only to be released upon making their numbers. I'm not saying that this is the right way to go, . . . its just a thought exercise for now.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 4:49 PM
Oh you prevent it by not having a floor and having a factor based on DC burn for onboarding devices. This fluctuates with the price of HNT but you likely don’t receive back more HNT than you burn with a device score rather than a data transfer floor.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh you prevent it by not having a floor and having a factor based on DC burn for onboarding devices. This fluctuates with the price of HNT but you likely don’t receive back more HNT than you burn with a device score rather than a data transfer floor.
Its all good. Everyone will not agree all the time, and not everyone sees things through one lens. For example, you think there should be no floor at all, . . . others disagree. That's what governance is about right?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/30/2023 4:59 PM
Should focus on what people agree on, the floor or counting DC burn is all about protecting iot like promised when sold subdaos
👆 2
16:59
How it's done is up to interpretation
Avatar
I have to say @Max - Just Max I am having a hard time getting past your argument that DC burn is the cost of receiving initial stimulus as a subDAO. I think in this HIP we don't really have a mechanism for stimulating a subDAO that's "just starting up". It's important that we reflect on whether we're just trying to solve the present MOBILE vs IOT situation (which I think we certainly are trying to do) or whether we're thinking longer-term about how to make Helium DAO attractive to newcomers. At least when DC burn is part of the equation, we have a mechanism for stimulating upstarts, in a way where they also have to bring something tangible to the table. It's a fair proposition where both parties stand to benefit. I do fear we've lost that with our changes here, and I don't know how to correct for it with the new formula, other than just setting an arbitrary floor for every new subDAO, which feels suboptimal as the subDAO doesn't have to bring anything to the table. I'd love to hear @JMF's thoughts on this as he was always a strong proponent of a "bootstrap allocation" in early iterations of HIP 51. He recognized the importance of providing stimulus to new subDAOs. (edited)
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Should focus on what people agree on, the floor or counting DC burn is all about protecting iot like promised when sold subdaos
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Yeah. I mean from a technical perspective, which I think that's really my role to provide, HIP-80 as written is great. It reduces complexity by a lot and removes an entire oracle and separate protocol. As an engineer, I also dislike ambiguity. So having something called "devices" that isn't well defined is not something I love. The change is just deleting some code and changing vehnt to sqrt (a one line change).
On a technical level, which oracle gets removed here? Forget an arbitrary idea of "devices"--isn't this all that needs to be done: - Snapshot sub(DC burn for activation) per subDAO on Apr 18 - Create a variable in the subDAO account to store that sum - Add to the sum whenever a device is onboarded
17:09
For mobile subDAO, simply grandfather in $40 x num devices onboarded
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I have to say @Max - Just Max I am having a hard time getting past your argument that DC burn is the cost of receiving initial stimulus as a subDAO. I think in this HIP we don't really have a mechanism for stimulating a subDAO that's "just starting up". It's important that we reflect on whether we're just trying to solve the present MOBILE vs IOT situation (which I think we certainly are trying to do) or whether we're thinking longer-term about how to make Helium DAO attractive to newcomers. At least when DC burn is part of the equation, we have a mechanism for stimulating upstarts, in a way where they also have to bring something tangible to the table. It's a fair proposition where both parties stand to benefit. I do fear we've lost that with our changes here, and I don't know how to correct for it with the new formula, other than just setting an arbitrary floor for every new subDAO, which feels suboptimal as the subDAO doesn't have to bring anything to the table. I'd love to hear @JMF's thoughts on this as he was always a strong proponent of a "bootstrap allocation" in early iterations of HIP 51. He recognized the importance of providing stimulus to new subDAOs. (edited)
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 5:21 PM
That was an a response to an offshoot idea of giving everyone a DC burn floor. Disregard that argument
17:25
I believe we get the jumpstart effect from the V score. There is an incentive to delegate towards new subDAOs because you can get a large percentage of that 6% bucket
👍 1
17:27
Then to add to Arman’s point on the mobile subDAO, if that $40 isn’t burned, just slash it from the treasury. Easy peasy
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I believe we get the jumpstart effect from the V score. There is an incentive to delegate towards new subDAOs because you can get a large percentage of that 6% bucket
Right ok, this is the correct argument I was not able to get to in my head, thanks.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Then to add to Arman’s point on the mobile subDAO, if that $40 isn’t burned, just slash it from the treasury. Easy peasy
Still not sure I understand this point, though. Why do an extra symbolic action that would require more code (and thus possible bugs) when we could just grandfather in the previously onboarded hotspots
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
On a technical level, which oracle gets removed here? Forget an arbitrary idea of "devices"--isn't this all that needs to be done: - Snapshot sub(DC burn for activation) per subDAO on Apr 18 - Create a variable in the subDAO account to store that sum - Add to the sum whenever a device is onboarded
Active devices has to be an oracle.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
On a technical level, which oracle gets removed here? Forget an arbitrary idea of "devices"--isn't this all that needs to be done: - Snapshot sub(DC burn for activation) per subDAO on Apr 18 - Create a variable in the subDAO account to store that sum - Add to the sum whenever a device is onboarded
But yes this is correct if we are summing onboarding fees rather than doing them by actives. But 1) someone has to write a query that goes back and finds out historically what each device pays. And 2) it’s an extra smart contract endpoint since data credits contract needs to cpi to sub DAOs contract. And 3) that probably needs to be audited as it’s a non trivial change
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Still not sure I understand this point, though. Why do an extra symbolic action that would require more code (and thus possible bugs) when we could just grandfather in the previously onboarded hotspots
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 6:01 PM
There was a retroactive burn in the past. It’s not unprecedented. It’s like 250,000 HNT, not a trivial amount (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
n_
But yes this is correct if we are summing onboarding fees rather than doing them by actives. But 1) someone has to write a query that goes back and finds out historically what each device pays. And 2) it’s an extra smart contract endpoint since data credits contract needs to cpi to sub DAOs contract. And 3) that probably needs to be audited as it’s a non trivial change
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 6:04 PM
We can assume every hotspot was onboarded for $40 then just query the location asserts if we want to layer that piece in (I think we should count all DC burn)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We can assume every hotspot was onboarded for $40 then just query the location asserts if we want to layer that piece in (I think we should count all DC burn)
Counting all DC burn instead of just onboarding kind of incentivizes subDAOs to create arbitrary burns to juice the score
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Counting all DC burn instead of just onboarding kind of incentivizes subDAOs to create arbitrary burns to juice the score
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 6:13 PM
So does fake data transfer. It should be a net negative or in extreme cases arbitraged out of the system
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We can assume every hotspot was onboarded for $40 then just query the location asserts if we want to layer that piece in (I think we should count all DC burn)
Didn’t onboarding fee get changed?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 6:23 PM
No. There was a HIP changing reassert fee. Data only hotspots are $10
18:23
Those should be easily parsed though
Avatar
I think the bigger onboarding fee towards utility score concern is, does it change subdao behavior? Would they keep high onboarding fees even if it is objectively worse for growth of the network because it counts towards utility score? (edited)
18:24
Oh man my brain isn’t working rn had to edit that like 5 times Lmao
18:25
I feel like first principles, what do we care about? Network usage and community sentiment. DC burn + vehnt delegation measures that. Onboarding fees do not.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 6:26 PM
Oh I disagree. helium DAO exists to burn HHT. Networks exist for usage
18:28
Helium DAO provides value to subDAOs, that value is extracted back to Helium DAO by burning a proxy value of the subDAO capex through onboarding fees
Avatar
In an ideal world, onboarding fees aren’t the primary driver of HNT burn. It’s network usage.
18:29
I thought the original intent of onboarding fees was anti bot. Not value extraction?
👍 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 6:31 PM
DAO Utility score it was help IOT and be a proxy for network size
18:33
There’s nothing really stopping a fork once a network goes from 0 to revenue. There needs to be some value extracted for incubating new subDAOs or else they’ll just leave and use their token instead of HNT once they have revenue
Avatar
Hadn’t heard that argument before. That’s interesting
18:35
I mean sunk cost doesn’t really stop the fork. But I guess gives the network something.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 6:36 PM
Yup. About 10% of capex and a bunch of early revenue goes back to Helium at least
Avatar
Hmm. Fair play. Curious what others think of this.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There’s nothing really stopping a fork once a network goes from 0 to revenue. There needs to be some value extracted for incubating new subDAOs or else they’ll just leave and use their token instead of HNT once they have revenue
That's not true. If they fork, they lose the continued investment of HNT into their subDAO.
19:41
Getting from 0 to revenue is a tough enough achievement. Getting from revenue to fully self-sustaining revenue is a whole other level. I don't expect either of the existing subDAOs to be profitable without continuous HNT treasury growth for many years
👍 2
19:42
In fact, the whole utility score mechanism is designed to invest and further stimulate successful subDAOs
Avatar
No way to do some sort of count of radios at time of sas registration rather then gateways? How will SaS fees eventually be handled? Feels like number of radios should be the devices being counted when it comes to 5g. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
That's not true. If they fork, they lose the continued investment of HNT into their subDAO.
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 9:14 PM
Oh I would absolutely incubate a network using Helium’s name and community then fuck off and use my own token and my own rules if I had the chance. Why would I want my network’s value diluted by other projects when I can accrue all value to my own token?
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Getting from 0 to revenue is a tough enough achievement. Getting from revenue to fully self-sustaining revenue is a whole other level. I don't expect either of the existing subDAOs to be profitable without continuous HNT treasury growth for many years
I guess I would like to simulate something 2 things we know are coming down the pipe line is DNS (decentralized network storage) and the mappers how would they react to these changes? @ferebee
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh I would absolutely incubate a network using Helium’s name and community then fuck off and use my own token and my own rules if I had the chance. Why would I want my network’s value diluted by other projects when I can accrue all value to my own token?
Because the Helium brand is valuable, for one. It has a proven track record of building a network with a million onboards and 400K active nodes. Nobody else has done anything like that, though some have tried.
22:49
And the other major reason to stick with Helium is that not only does IOT get to ride on 5G’s coattails for a bit. Later, those who participate now in 5G may get to ride on 6G’s coattails, or IOT’s, or Dabba’s. There’s strength in solidarity.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 11:19 PM
That was a nice pep talk but you don’t really believe that, do you?
Troll 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
@ferebee @JMF . Throwing an idea out there. When we were first considering HIP51, we considered an award bucket to encourage new subDAOs to join. What if we consider a time limited floor of say 25 to be given to any new subDAOs upon entrance into the Helium ecosystem? We could say, IoT got a floor of 50, because they were first, but all future ones can get a 25 floor for 4 years. Is this a crazy thought? Some claim that other projects are not excited to join Helium, . . .might that entice them? (edited)
If the subDAO has potential for future revenue that is not realized yet (bc not enough hotspots deployed yet), that should be reflected by the amount of veHNT delegated to the subDAO leading to an HNT value going to there treasury that is higher than the current revenue generated would justify, yes? Isn't that already the "bonus" rewards when starting out a new subDAO? Meaning no extra starting out reward bucket needed?
👆 2
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The value LoRa added was the $500M in DC burn. That’s what we want to reward. Not being first
I like to think about this differently: The value Lora added is having built out a lot of infrastructure that continuously provides value/utility (Lora coverage that can be used) and will generate/capture recurring revenue. We shouldn't reward one time HNT burns - because with that logic, building a subDAO that puts out completely useless hardware and just burns a chunk of HNT when onboarding devices should be rewarded too, even if it created no utility at all and no recurring revenue. This not what we want, is it? The only justification for an A factor I see is to finance the buildout and upkeep of an infrastructure that will have usage in the future that is not realized yet, if the incentives generated by the V and the D factor weren't sufficient to ensure that. In other words: if e.g. HNT rewards going to IOT subDAO based on V and D factors are sufficient to keep the Lora subDAO/its flywheel running until the usage is there, we need no A factor I have no answer if that is the case, just sharing how I prefer we think about the problem. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 11:46 PM
Then we don’t need to subsidize LoRa with a floor. The issue is with showing favoritism to one subDAO without any legitimate justification for it. LoRa shouldn’t be the only one getting the benefit of more HNT for building out a large network
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There’s nothing really stopping a fork once a network goes from 0 to revenue. There needs to be some value extracted for incubating new subDAOs or else they’ll just leave and use their token instead of HNT once they have revenue
If this is a risk (not saying it isn't, just that I haven't thought it through yet), does paying onboarding fees really stop subDAO from leaving? Atm, I don't see that it does. Or is your point that it is less painful/damaging for Helium, as that subDAO at least burned some HNT before leaving?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/30/2023 11:57 PM
It doesn’t stop them from leaving but it’s better than nothing. They’d also, depending on their size, likely burn more HNT than they earn (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Then we don’t need to subsidize LoRa with a floor. The issue is with showing favoritism to one subDAO without any legitimate justification for it. LoRa shouldn’t be the only one getting the benefit of more HNT for building out a large network
Agree - if V and D are sufficient, then we shouldn't need a special provision floor. I don't know if they are. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It doesn’t stop them from leaving but it’s better than nothing. They’d also, depending on their size, likely burn more HNT than they earn (edited)
Now I understand your reasoning.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 12:00 AM
The goal of the HIP was to figure out how to simplify the onboarding problem. For some reason it got way to convoluted and does a pretty terrible job of accomplishing anything. The simple solution is to just slash from the treasury the needed HNT to satisfy the unpaid onboarding fees. We were told that wasn’t possible, Noah has clarified that is possible and easy to implement.
00:00
It was also considered a critical piece of HIP-51 for that slashing ability to exist.
Avatar
having some sunk cost does seem like something desirable to at least have a hurdle for leaving
00:10
Take the boring protocol, when they figured out they couldn’t use their own token they bailed, but having no onboarding fees means that you can just leech until you get going and then leave
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Getting from 0 to revenue is a tough enough achievement. Getting from revenue to fully self-sustaining revenue is a whole other level. I don't expect either of the existing subDAOs to be profitable without continuous HNT treasury growth for many years
Would it be correct to say that this argument doesn't apply to 'gaming' subDAOs that would just join to temporarily extract some HNT and then leave, without ever providing any value, but that that wouldn't be a problem, bc we would easily spot them before getting approved and the community would never approve them as a new subDAO in the first place?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 12:14 AM
I doubt we’d spot them and the founders with their huge pre-mines could drain most of the treasury fund and rug the subDAO.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh I would absolutely incubate a network using Helium’s name and community then fuck off and use my own token and my own rules if I had the chance. Why would I want my network’s value diluted by other projects when I can accrue all value to my own token?
If we designed the HNT distribution mechanism right, shouldn't reward value of each subDAOs HNT share reflect revenue of services sold by the subDAO - and the problem to be solved not dilution by other subDAOs but whether the value provided by being a Helium subDAO is worth paying the "tax" to HST holders and veHNT delegators and other costs? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Would it be correct to say that this argument doesn't apply to 'gaming' subDAOs that would just join to temporarily extract some HNT and then leave, without ever providing any value, but that that wouldn't be a problem, bc we would easily spot them before getting approved and the community would never approve them as a new subDAO in the first place?
It’s an illusion you’re able to spot it in time if well executed. Once you spot it it is done already and you will know but can’t do anything about it anymore
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
If we designed the HNT distribution mechanism right, shouldn't reward value of each subDAOs HNT share reflect revenue of services sold by the subDAO - and the problem to be solved not dilution by other subDAOs but whether the value provided by being a Helium subDAO is worth paying the "tax" to HST holders and veHNT delegators and other costs? (edited)
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 12:19 AM
Yes but we didn’t design it right. We have too many things designed to entice LoRaWan people to agree which throws things off. Also the HST piece is a non-trivial haircut.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes but we didn’t design it right. We have too many things designed to entice LoRaWan people to agree which throws things off. Also the HST piece is a non-trivial haircut.
So, if we kept the A factor in the variation you suggested and made no special provision for Lora - anything else wrong with the rewards mechanics in your opinion? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 12:28 AM
I see merit in the argument that V variable is too strong. I haven’t personally modeled it out or seen a model that anyone else has put together. It could be fine though, really difficult to project how much veHNT will be delegated.
00:30
FWIW, I don’t think my changes to the A are perfect. It’s a much easier implementation of the A factor without calculating individual onboard costs by device and matching it up with the devices that are online each day.
Avatar
Just a thought: Say all the networks of all the subDAOs are fully built out - meaning there would be no need to incentivize further buildout or to induce shrinking of hardware deployed - then the rewards share values of HNT going to each subDAO should be proportional to the revenues the subDAOs generate. Meaning they should be proportional to the D values in the subDAO utility scores of the subDAOs. For this to be the case, in such a situation the amounts of veHNT delegations to each subDAO should be equal (if we keep the current formula, square root or not). Generally spoken, the equilibrium veHNT delegations shouldn't move the HNT rewards shares proportions to proportions that are different than the proportions of revenues the subDAOs generate. Does our current design of how we mathematically include veHNT delegations into the subDAO score ensure this or does our design lead to veHNT delegation dynamics that in stable equilibrium (when there is no to need increase/decrease/change hardware deployed) reward subDAOs disproportionally to the revenue they create? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
FWIW, I don’t think my changes to the A are perfect. It’s a much easier implementation of the A factor without calculating individual onboard costs by device and matching it up with the devices that are online each day.
If we include some kind of A factor, I tend to think we should design its mathematical inclusion in a way that * in the long run*, it doesn't move HNT proportions going to subDAOs away from proportions of revenues they generate. (edited)
Avatar
The A part isn’t strong enough for that unless they burn massive amounts and why wouldn’t a subDAO launching satellites get some protocol score boost for their efforts?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Just a thought: Say all the networks of all the subDAOs are fully built out - meaning there would be no need to incentivize further buildout or to induce shrinking of hardware deployed - then the rewards share values of HNT going to each subDAO should be proportional to the revenues the subDAOs generate. Meaning they should be proportional to the D values in the subDAO utility scores of the subDAOs. For this to be the case, in such a situation the amounts of veHNT delegations to each subDAO should be equal (if we keep the current formula, square root or not). Generally spoken, the equilibrium veHNT delegations shouldn't move the HNT rewards shares proportions to proportions that are different than the proportions of revenues the subDAOs generate. Does our current design of how we mathematically include veHNT delegations into the subDAO score ensure this or does our design lead to veHNT delegation dynamics that in stable equilibrium (when there is no to need increase/decrease/change hardware deployed) reward subDAOs disproportionally to the revenue they create? (edited)
I don't know all the implications of this thought, but my guess is, that not having some sort of discounting veHNT delegation amounts like the square root increases the risk of the dynamics tending to an equilibrium HNT distribution that is different than the proportions if the revenues the subDAOs generate in equilibrium. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The A part isn’t strong enough for that unless they burn massive amounts and why wouldn’t a subDAO launching satellites get some protocol score boost for their efforts?
Not strong enough for what? (edited)
Avatar
Not strong enough to massively skew the protocol score
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Not strong enough to massively skew the protocol score
Noted. And you're saying no matter whether we use the current implementation or the 'consider all devices ever onboarded' proposal?
00:59
One argument against the 'ever onboarded' variation: Over time, the factor would continuously grow, as old devices break and get replaced by new ones that pay onboarding fees. Over (long) time, the factor would at least partly become a factor that rewards for age of a subDAO, if we don't restrict it to fees of active devices. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
One argument against the 'ever onboarded' variation: Over time, the factor would continuously grow, as old devices break and get replaced by new ones that pay onboarding fees. Over (long) time, the factor would at least partly become a factor that rewards for age of a subDAO, if we don't restrict it to fees of active devices. (edited)
Creates a perverse incentive for large holders of the DNT to manufacturer devices that have very short lifespans. An obsolescence incentive if you will.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The goal of the HIP was to figure out how to simplify the onboarding problem. For some reason it got way to convoluted and does a pretty terrible job of accomplishing anything. The simple solution is to just slash from the treasury the needed HNT to satisfy the unpaid onboarding fees. We were told that wasn’t possible, Noah has clarified that is possible and easy to implement.
Excuse me? Who said slashing is not possible? Of course it’s possible to implement. It also will doubtless be implemented as a means for the Helium DAO to slash rogue subDAOs who might be subverting Utility Score. As you rightly point out, that’s part of HIP-51, and HIP-80 doesn’t propose to change that. OTOH, slashing is currently not implemented, I’ve been told. So first the implementation needs to be built, and like all smart contracts, that will need to be audited etc., so it can’t happen immediately. And slashing itself, the regular kind, will obviously need to be executed through Helium DAO veHNT governance. I guess an additional, special-purpose, one-time slashing smart contract could be implemented, which would progressively slash HNT from the MOBILE subDAO treasury as it becomes available. I think you would need to ask Foundation whether resources are available for that, or explain whi is going to pay for implementation and audits. It all sounds like a recipe for chaos and disorder, and a lot of extra effort just to implement the more complicated Utility Score you are proposing in place of HIP-80, whose actual benefits you have not demonstrated.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Noted. And you're saying no matter whether we use the current implementation or the 'consider all devices ever onboarded' proposal?
I’d say that doesn’t matter because the capital was spent, doesn’t matter to me if you spend 5 every 6 months or 10 every 12 on your devices
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Excuse me? Who said slashing is not possible? Of course it’s possible to implement. It also will doubtless be implemented as a means for the Helium DAO to slash rogue subDAOs who might be subverting Utility Score. As you rightly point out, that’s part of HIP-51, and HIP-80 doesn’t propose to change that. OTOH, slashing is currently not implemented, I’ve been told. So first the implementation needs to be built, and like all smart contracts, that will need to be audited etc., so it can’t happen immediately. And slashing itself, the regular kind, will obviously need to be executed through Helium DAO veHNT governance. I guess an additional, special-purpose, one-time slashing smart contract could be implemented, which would progressively slash HNT from the MOBILE subDAO treasury as it becomes available. I think you would need to ask Foundation whether resources are available for that, or explain whi is going to pay for implementation and audits. It all sounds like a recipe for chaos and disorder, and a lot of extra effort just to implement the more complicated Utility Score you are proposing in place of HIP-80, whose actual benefits you have not demonstrated.
Wondering, did you read Max right here? Quoting Max:
We were told that wasn’t possible, Noah has clarified that is possible and easy to implement.
I understand it the way, that Max says: "We were first told it was impossible, Noah now told us this is incorrect and that it is possible." So Max also says "It is possible". So as a result you both say "it is possible"? Or isn't it about whether you both agree, but what was said in the first place?
(edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Wondering, did you read Max right here? Quoting Max:
We were told that wasn’t possible, Noah has clarified that is possible and easy to implement.
I understand it the way, that Max says: "We were first told it was impossible, Noah now told us this is incorrect and that it is possible." So Max also says "It is possible". So as a result you both say "it is possible"? Or isn't it about whether you both agree, but what was said in the first place?
(edited)
My first paragraph is a reply to Max’ statement, “We were told that wasn’t possible.” Don’t want to go around in circles here, but I understood Max to be saying, somebody (who? does it matter?) stated that slashing was not possible. My understanding is, Max and I both think slashing is possible. I’m not aware that we were told it wasn’t possible. So just to clarify that part.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
My first paragraph is a reply to Max’ statement, “We were told that wasn’t possible.” Don’t want to go around in circles here, but I understood Max to be saying, somebody (who? does it matter?) stated that slashing was not possible. My understanding is, Max and I both think slashing is possible. I’m not aware that we were told it wasn’t possible. So just to clarify that part.
understood
Avatar
Now my actual point is, slashing is currently not possible, because slashing has not been implemented yet, because it was thought that there would not be an immediate need for slashing. Therefore, we might immediately credit MOBILE with hypothetical onboarding fees, as I understand Max to propose, but the other half of that proposal—slashing the fees from the MOBILE treasury—couldn’t be executed until later, when slashing will have been implemented. Therefore, I find a solution that involves backpaying hypothetical MOBILE onboarding fees now, and recovering them by slashing them from the MOBIULE treasury later, more, and not less complicated. (edited)
👍 1
02:42
Furthermore, if all of this is to be done in a properly decentralized manner by DAO governance, the slashing can’t just be executed arbitrarily by some “authority”. That authority would then be able to slash some arbitrary amount. Rather, a smart contract would have to be implemented (and audited!) that actually slashed the correct amountt.
Avatar
I do agree with Max that the argument 'implementationally complex' can't become the go-to reason to just change things.
Avatar
Especially since it has been proposed that the missing fees not be slashed all at once, but rather gradually, so as not to impair the treasury “too much” in the early phase, which is especially important as the slashing actually impairs Hotspots that join the network after transition and don’t have anything to do with the missing onboarding fees.
Avatar
Implementational complexity shouldn't be used as a reason at all, if it is possible to reasonably implement (which it is) some bad assumptions that were previously made shouldn't be used as a reason to just change the spec to fit the implementation
02:46
That is essentially what is happening here, changing the spec to fit the easiest implementation
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I do agree with Max that the argument 'implementationally complex' can't become the go-to reason to just change things.
That’s backwards. I’m pointing out the implementational complexity of what is being newly proposed. I do think that if a change is proposed, and it involves new complexity, then that needs to be considered. Ask Noah, he has to do the work. This idea of slashing missing fees over time from the MOBILE treasury is a new proposal. The alternative proposal, HIP-80, does not require this increased complexity. What we haven’t seen yet is any actual evidence that a hypothetical HIP-Max would provide advantages over HIP-80. So it brings added complexity, but the advantages are hearsay. HIP-80 simplifies the implementation, which I do believe is a benefit in itself, as it reduces the probability of implementation errors.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That is essentially what is happening here, changing the spec to fit the easiest implementation
The proposal involving slashing also changes the spec.
Avatar
Without at first ((a)+(b) below) thinking about how to solve it: What do you think about the mentioned danger of a non-value adding, extractive subDAO joining Helium and leaving after having extracted more value than it provided. (a) Do think such a danger exists? (b) If so, do you think something should be done about it (meaning: is the problem important enough)? (c) If so, do you think keeping the A factor would be (c1) a viable method and (c2) the best method to counteract this partly AND that (c3) this alone warrants keeping some variation of the A factor? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s backwards. I’m pointing out the implementational complexity of what is being newly proposed. I do think that if a change is proposed, and it involves new complexity, then that needs to be considered. Ask Noah, he has to do the work. This idea of slashing missing fees over time from the MOBILE treasury is a new proposal. The alternative proposal, HIP-80, does not require this increased complexity. What we haven’t seen yet is any actual evidence that a hypothetical HIP-Max would provide advantages over HIP-80. So it brings added complexity, but the advantages are hearsay. HIP-80 simplifies the implementation, which I do believe is a benefit in itself, as it reduces the probability of implementation errors.
It isn't backwards, the whole reason we started with HIP78 in the first place is because MOBILE didn't onboard and Noah just assumed $50 for every device regardless of whether they onboarded.
02:53
Or let me rephrase, the reason HIP78 was a necessity rather than a possibility was because the current implementation doesn't meet the spec.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Or let me rephrase, the reason HIP78 was a necessity rather than a possibility was because the current implementation doesn't meet the spec.
Yes, but we are discussion two solutions for the problem that is necessary to be solved: one that has been proposed and has less implementation complexity and another one that has more implementation complexity. If the more complex one isn't better than the less complex one, we should choose the less complex one. That's the line of reasoning as I understand it. (edited)
Avatar
I don't like the way we're suggesting here that these are the only possible options. The third option is do nothing and implement it as specced in HIP51.
02:57
"isn't better" is also based on nothing, neither one of the two options have presented conclusive evidence that they are better than HIP51.
Avatar
If we are talking about slashing We ought to slash 2733x$30 = $81,990 of HNT burned to DC. As thats the value of onboarding fees that the current calc assumes the Data Only's paid but didnt. They are counted as $40 when they should be $10. And as for a slashed backpay for onboarding the outstanding 5G units do we count: (r) The roughly 3800 with earning Radios today (s) The total of 5G capable hotspots worldwide >10K (t) The total of 5G capable hotspots in the USA <10K (u) A number between (r) and (t) to be determined.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
If we are talking about slashing We ought to slash 2733x$30 = $81,990 of HNT burned to DC. As thats the value of onboarding fees that the current calc assumes the Data Only's paid but didnt. They are counted as $40 when they should be $10. And as for a slashed backpay for onboarding the outstanding 5G units do we count: (r) The roughly 3800 with earning Radios today (s) The total of 5G capable hotspots worldwide >10K (t) The total of 5G capable hotspots in the USA <10K (u) A number between (r) and (t) to be determined.
Oh, you mean slash from IOT, for the Data Onlys? Interesting.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't like the way we're suggesting here that these are the only possible options. The third option is do nothing and implement it as specced in HIP51.
But if there is a necessity, is "do nothing" an option that should even be considered? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
But if there is a necessity, is "do nothing" an option that should even be considered? (edited)
There is only a necessity because it is framed as such and apparently implementing the spec is something that has just causally been written off
Avatar
Anyway, returning to the subject of this channel, HIP-80 proposes a solution to multiple issues, including but not limited to the missing onboarding fees, and is simple to implement. An alternative proposal should demonstrate that it is better and/or at least practical to implement, and then needs a HIP. I don’t see any of that yet… (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There is only a necessity because it is framed as such and apparently implementing the spec is something that has just causally been written off
Ah, ok, then I understood something differently than you had intended it to be understood. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Anyway, returning to the subject of this channel, HIP-80 proposes a solution to multiple issues, including but not limited to the missing onboarding fees, and is simple to implement. An alternative proposal should demonstrate that it is better and/or at least practical to implement, and then needs a HIP. I don’t see any of that yet… (edited)
Yea no, that's not how this works. You propose a HIP to change spec and other people should just demonstrate that the current spec is better?
03:03
That an alternative that also changes spec should demonstrate that it is better than the current spec (notably not your spec) is also true.
03:03
What you're saying is that I propose something and everyone else should just prove that the current spec is better or an alternative spec is better than mine.
03:04
"bla bla, prove me wrong" is not how the HIP process works.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
"bla bla, prove me wrong" is not how the HIP process works.
Well, if we have two proposed changes P1 and P2 that each share a consequence dimension CD1 and a consequence dimension CD2 (representing all other consequence dimensions), and - we know P2 is worse than P1 regarding CD1, and - we have no idea if P2 is better, equal, or worse than P1 regarding CD2, doesn't that clearly favor P1? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Well, if we have two proposed changes P1 and P2 that each share a consequence dimension CD1 and a consequence dimension CD2 (representing all other consequence dimensions), and - we know P2 is worse than P1 regarding CD1, and - we have no idea if P2 is better, equal, or worse than P1 regarding CD2, doesn't that clearly favor P1? (edited)
You haven't proven that P1 nor P2 is better than the status quo for starters.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You haven't proven that P1 nor P2 is better than the status quo for starters.
True. But this is a different decision. One decision is: "Should any of (P1, P2) be implemented?", the other one is: "if yes to that question, which one?". We are talking about the latter. You may be able to answer the latter without knowing the answer to the former. (edited)
03:12
........................ Anyway. How do we move on from here?
Avatar
That's not what is happening here though, 'we should go with P1 because it's better than P2'. But we conveniently fail to assess whether we should implement P1 in the first place, we just use the outcome of P1 vs P2 as a reason for going with P1 (edited)
Avatar
If that is true (I do not know), what is missing to be able to answer whether we should implement P1 (the initial HIP proposal)? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Yea no, that's not how this works. You propose a HIP to change spec and other people should just demonstrate that the current spec is better?
Wait a second. 😆 My position is that we have issues that need to be addressed, as detailed in HIP-80 in the section Motivation. I wrote HIP-80 with rawrmaan and JMF in an attempt to address these issues. So I’m concerned with whether HIP-80 does in fact address the concerns, and that is actually the subject of this channel.
Avatar
Annoyingly enough we wouldn't even be in this position if HIP51 would've been implemented correctly or at least we wouldn't have needed to rush it because it completely messes up the protocol score.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Annoyingly enough we wouldn't even be in this position if HIP51 would've been implemented correctly or at least we wouldn't have needed to rush it because it completely messes up the protocol score.
Yeah, unfortunately, reality is the thing we need to work with.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Wait a second. 😆 My position is that we have issues that need to be addressed, as detailed in HIP-80 in the section Motivation. I wrote HIP-80 with rawrmaan and JMF in an attempt to address these issues. So I’m concerned with whether HIP-80 does in fact address the concerns, and that is actually the subject of this channel.
It's not the HIP, it's the misplaced "gotta go fast" attitude of the process surrounding it.
03:18
The second paragraph of your "motivation" of why "certain intents of HIP-51 are not fully realized" lists the reason the HIP51 intentions are actually realized.
03:18
Namely the 'no capex no extra weight' intention (edited)
Avatar
Can we have a recap of where we are with our discussion and what we still need to answer to decide on / to be able to finalize the HIP? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Anyway, returning to the subject of this channel, HIP-80 proposes a solution to multiple issues, including but not limited to the missing onboarding fees, and is simple to implement. An alternative proposal should demonstrate that it is better and/or at least practical to implement, and then needs a HIP. I don’t see any of that yet… (edited)
Yeah searching for the perfect solution will take a lot of thought - which wont happen before the migration. We need a fix for mobile before the migration within the parameters we can work with.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Wait a second. 😆 My position is that we have issues that need to be addressed, as detailed in HIP-80 in the section Motivation. I wrote HIP-80 with rawrmaan and JMF in an attempt to address these issues. So I’m concerned with whether HIP-80 does in fact address the concerns, and that is actually the subject of this channel.
Some people, Max in particular, have suggested that there might be alternatives, but nobody has actually provided any data to show that they are preferable to HIP-80, or in fact improve on HIP-51, except for a convoluted fix for the missing onboarding fees, which I maintain is more complicated, and unnecessarily so, than what is proposed HIP-80.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Yeah searching for the perfect solution will take a lot of thought - which wont happen before the migration. We need a fix for mobile before the migration within the parameters we can work with.
no burn is no reward, solved. (edited)
Avatar
HIP-80 is our proposal. I don’t see any other proposal… (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Some people, Max in particular, have suggested that there might be alternatives, but nobody has actually provided any data to show that they are preferable to HIP-80, or in fact improve on HIP-51, except for a convoluted fix for the missing onboarding fees, which I maintain is more complicated, and unnecessarily so, than what is proposed HIP-80.
HIP80 hasn't shown to be preferential to HIP51 either. Just conjecture and assumptions, not a single verifiable graph in there.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
HIP-80 is our proposal. I don’t see any other proposal… (edited)
no burn is no reward, solved.
Sounds like the alternative proposal is "do nothing, vote no on HIP 80"?
(edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
HIP80 hasn't shown to be preferential to HIP51 either. Just conjecture and assumptions, not a single verifiable graph in there.
Avatar
Independent of that, I would still put that sqrt around the amounts of veHNT staked. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
no burn is no reward, solved. (edited)
That would have been my HIP78 yes. Onboarding is $40, someone pays for previous. If no-one pays for previous or voted no. Onboarding is $0. Solve at a later date.
Avatar
Lemme post it again.
03:22
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
That would have been my HIP78 yes. Onboarding is $40, someone pays for previous. If no-one pays for previous or voted no. Onboarding is $0. Solve at a later date.
Why do I have to onboard my IOT hotspot to get rewards but I can get rewards without onboarding my MOBILE hotspot? Who thought it was a good idea to implement the smart contracts without this guard rail in place? And consequently, why does the absence of this guardrail lead to a bunch of HIPs instead of simply accepting that unonboarded gateways don't get rewards after the migration?
Avatar
Could you add a line with IOT and MOBILE DC per month being identical? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Click to see attachment 🖼️
I don't agree with the fact that regardless of HIP78/80 there is this convenient assumptions that unonboarded gateways continue to earn rewards.
Avatar
Meaning another one with MOBILE DC=$75000
Avatar
No onboarding fee doesn't only mean the factor is 1, it also means there will be no MOBILE rewards to that hotspot
👀 1
03:26
That's HIP51, or are we going to change that too?
03:26
It's a big fat oversight not to have a not onboarded = no rewards in the contracts.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
No onboarding fee doesn't only mean the factor is 1, it also means there will be no MOBILE rewards to that hotspot
If that's true (don't know), what is the reason that MOBILE hotspots received MOBILE Genesis rewards? That rule didn't apply for Genesis? (edited)
Avatar
An argument that has been proposed for the alternative DAO Utility Score Max was discussing is that it provides an easier on-ramp to new subDAOs. I think that is incorrect. Here are a few numbers for that, assuming that IOT were to become the dominant subDAO and therefore have a large portion of veHNT delegated to it, and using the $75,000 Floor parameter proposed in HIP-80. To the extent that IOT were less dominant and MOBILE more so, the effect of the Floor parameter would be less.
03:27
Avatar
Also the reason why I think this pretend necessity is nonsense, we don't have to worry about them not onboarding because they won't get rewards without it.
Avatar
We can see clearly here that the square root in the V factor makes the entry for new subDAOs significantly easier.
Avatar
Somehow the assumption is that MOBILE gets to have the cake and eat it too
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
We can see clearly here that the square root in the V factor makes the entry for new subDAOs significantly easier.
Ok, so now you're saying that in order to get the adjusted V I must also accept the other stuff? You should be a lawmaker
03:29
I'm giving you a hard time because of the flaws in logic all around this issue (not just this HIP, the entire issue), but don't get me wrong I like both you and what you do for this community.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Why do I have to onboard my IOT hotspot to get rewards but I can get rewards without onboarding my MOBILE hotspot? Who thought it was a good idea to implement the smart contracts without this guard rail in place? And consequently, why does the absence of this guardrail lead to a bunch of HIPs instead of simply accepting that unonboarded gateways don't get rewards after the migration?
I dont like it either.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Ok, so now you're saying that in order to get the adjusted V I must also accept the other stuff? You should be a lawmaker
Look. Arman, JMF and I, after much discussion (and with lots of technical assistance from Noah), have written HIP-80, considering all aspects we could think of. That’s our proposal. Other people are free to make other proposals. The issue of the missing onboarding fees to MOBILE, which will seriously limit the HNT going to MOBILE at transition under HIP-51 and thereafter until more onboarding fees are burned, has been known since October. Where are these other proposals? We’re quite willing to make modifications to HIP-80 if people can convince us that they’re better. We’re not going to write some other HIP based on some other approach, particularly if it hasn’t been shown to be better. (edited)
Avatar
Can we think about the proposed change to the V factor (adding a sqrt) in isolation? If so, can we agree on adding that sqrt (I am in favor) or is there still need for discussion?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Look. Arman, JMF and I, after much discussion (and with lots of technical assistance from Noah), have written HIP-80, considering all aspects we could think of. That’s our proposal. Other people are free to make other proposals. The issue of the missing onboarding fees to MOBILE, which will seriously limit the HNT going to MOBILE at transition under HIP-51 and thereafter until more onboarding fees are burned, has been known since October. Where are these other proposals? We’re quite willing to make modifications to HIP-80 if people can convince us that they’re better. We’re not going to write some other HIP based on some other approach, particularly if it hasn’t been shown to be better. (edited)
Playing devils advocate: I don’t need another proposal because no onboarding is no rewards, the MOBILE subDAO can figure out on their own how they want to cough up the fees.
03:37
But you are still starting from the assumption that something has to change because it would otherwise limit MOBILE. That sounds like a MOBILE problem (edited)
03:38
I don’t think we should change the protocol score because some subDAO messes up
03:39
There will be on Solana and that’s the point in time this starts to matter
03:39
Oh, you deleted it
Avatar
Yeah, never mind.
03:39
On second thought not sure if that thought really holds (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Can we think about the proposed change to the V factor (adding a sqrt) in isolation? If so, can we agree on adding that sqrt (I am in favor) or is there still need for discussion?
I don’t understand the question… You can think whatever you want. 🤣 Anybody is free to propose anything. If some basic requirements are met, a HIP can be published and voted on. You can fork HIP-78 and add a square root to HIP-78 if you like, or you can propose a square root to V in isolation. Neither solves the missing MOBILE onboarding fee issue though. In my view, HIP-80 solves other issues which have come up as we were researching things for HIP-80, which is why we proposed it that way. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Playing devils advocate: I don’t need another proposal because no onboarding is no rewards, the MOBILE subDAO can figure out on their own how they want to cough up the fees.
So just poking your devil. I think from what you are saying that only 6% of MOBILE is mined after 18th. As the 60% that would goto PoC+Data or heartbeat can only goto onboarded 5G hotspots and non are?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/31/2023 3:41 AM
Competing hips isn't a bad thing I suppose, it gives people's choice just seems silly voting twice when only one was presented without general feedback being sought before proposing it
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t understand the question… You can think whatever you want. 🤣 Anybody is free to propose anything. If some basic requirements are met, a HIP can be published and voted on. You can fork HIP-78 and add a square root to HIP-78 if you like, or you can propose a square root to V in isolation. Neither solves the missing MOBILE onboarding fee issue though. In my view, HIP-80 solves other issues which have come up as we were researching things for HIP-80, which is why we proposed it that way. (edited)
I was just trying to bring the debate forward. Mainly initiated by groots question whether we are now debating package deals. The intention was to find out, if there is still need for discussion, or if we can just state, that if that HIP gets approved, we all like that it adds your proposed sqrt to the subDAO utility score. As you proposed to add that, the question is mainly addressed to everyone else, I guess. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
So just poking your devil. I think from what you are saying that only 6% of MOBILE is mined after 18th. As the 60% that would goto PoC+Data or heartbeat can only goto onboarded 5G hotspots and non are?
Pretty much, yes. I just find it stupid this discussion/HIP(s) started from the assumption "we have to change something because MOBILE didn't pay their onboarding" and Fdn implemented the smart contracts the wrong way so now our hand is forced. These are both terrible reasons for this being pushed out as "must happen before migration". In reality the only thing that must happen before migration is implementing the smart contracts the way they are specced.
03:43
This isn't time sensitive, the time sensitive thing is getting the Fdn to implement the spec.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Competing hips isn't a bad thing I suppose, it gives people's choice just seems silly voting twice when only one was presented without general feedback being sought before proposing it
I sought general feedback for HIP-78. Not a lot was forthcoming except for some pretty amazing discussions about onboarding fees for radios. I had private discussions with the HIP-51 team as well, and Noah, and all this came together last weekend, which is why we published HIP-80. Now we are having public discussions. We’re open to new ideas and modifications, but if people want to suggest we modify HIP-80, they need to show their idea is better than HIP-80. It’s not like we haven’t put thought into it already.
👍 1
Avatar
Private discussions is what made the mess that is called HIP51 in the first place
03:46
"oh no sorry we know you're half way through voting but we changed some things"
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/31/2023 3:47 AM
so what is everyone in agreement that hip80 works for and what doesnt it do well? i think a lot of folks dont like the 75k floor right, and prefer counting whats already been used instead, does that need data to back it up or ?
03:47
at the same time there seems some pushback from mobile about paying onboarding or how thats done/counted right?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
so what is everyone in agreement that hip80 works for and what doesnt it do well? i think a lot of folks dont like the 75k floor right, and prefer counting whats already been used instead, does that need data to back it up or ?
I don't dislike the proposal that much to be honest, I dislike that a) it is presented as a necessity while it really isn't and b) "this is well thought out because me and 3 other people decided behind closed doors that it is"
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The second paragraph of your "motivation" of why "certain intents of HIP-51 are not fully realized" lists the reason the HIP51 intentions are actually realized.
Not sure I understand this. The intended meaning is, first, MOBILE should get some HNT from launch if it has Hotspots and starts burning DC. Second, IOT should get the founder’s bonus that is evidently a contentious issue, but apart from the quote from capcom I posted earlier I think I’ll let Arman argue that.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
so what is everyone in agreement that hip80 works for and what doesnt it do well? i think a lot of folks dont like the 75k floor right, and prefer counting whats already been used instead, does that need data to back it up or ?
what are you counting thats already been used, over what period? I need a reminder on that one (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/31/2023 3:49 AM
im not counting anything, max just asked me to help him write a hip if he has to lol
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
im not counting anything, max just asked me to help him write a hip if he has to lol
Anything that needs a new summed total over a period of time is new code, new contract, new audit, new date
👍 1
03:51
Or post migraton
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/31/2023 3:51 AM
right so 80 as is makes more sense, why not schedule a review for the 75k in 6 months or something, if thats the issue here?
👀 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
so what is everyone in agreement that hip80 works for and what doesnt it do well? i think a lot of folks dont like the 75k floor right, and prefer counting whats already been used instead, does that need data to back it up or ?
- I like the addition of a sqrt around the amounts of veHNT delegated a lot. I pointed out months ago that I view including delegated veHNT amounts without any discounting in the subDAO utility score as potentially very problematic. It is a solution for a potential problem. Why the solution came up now, doesn't matter to me. - I am also not fully convinced that we need the A factor in the DAO utility score, so I am not strongly opposed to kicking it out of the DAO utility score formula - no matter if kicking out helps solving the problem of the missing onboarding fees or not. - I have no well thought out position regarding minimum value for D for the IOT subDAO. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't dislike the proposal that much to be honest, I dislike that a) it is presented as a necessity while it really isn't and b) "this is well thought out because me and 3 other people decided behind closed doors that it is"
I dunno if it’s well thought out. I said thought went into it. I had originally thought I’d be pushing a few updates to HIP-78, and things came up in the discussions that warranted making it a new HIP, and adding additional authors. JMF brought up the square root in the V factor. Yes, that was a sudden addition, which is why it’s a new HIP, and why we’re discussing it. That’s the way it is with ideas. Somebody has them, and then they get discussed.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Anything that needs a new summed total over a period of time is new code, new contract, new audit, new date
If that’s true than this stuff is moot and the only sane thing to do is no onboarding is no rewards
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If that’s true than this stuff is moot and the only sane thing to do is no onboarding is no rewards
What “stuff”? HIP-80 can be implemented.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
What “stuff”? HIP-80 can be implemented.
It’s new code
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It’s new code
I don’t do blockchain programming. I’m told it could be implemented with minimal additional work…
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If that’s true than this stuff is moot and the only sane thing to do is no onboarding is no rewards
We can modify the existing equation and the current variables and add chainvars but we cant add new variables that are collected sums of other variables.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/31/2023 3:55 AM
from what i understand, so could the way max proposed
Avatar
If that’s a point of contention, we should probably ask Noah.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/31/2023 3:55 AM
slashing isnt in, but can be just as quickly
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
from what i understand, so could the way max proposed
Not the slashing bit.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t do blockchain programming. I’m told it could be implemented with minimal additional work…
Minimal isn’t nothing, so you can’t cherry pick what requires new audits and what doesn’t
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/31/2023 3:56 AM
he spoke to noah, he said it wasnt much work to add and 51 does describe us having it, to not seems an oversight
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
slashing isnt in, but can be just as quickly
No it can’t. Any slashing facility needs significant guardrails.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Minimal isn’t nothing, so you can’t cherry pick what requires new audits and what doesn’t
If people want to discuss this, which is just what I’ve been told, why not ping Noah? I’m not qualified.
Avatar
Guard rails like no onboarding is no rewards or guard rails like not every onboard is equal?
03:57
Lots of cherry picking going on here
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
he spoke to noah, he said it wasnt much work to add and 51 does describe us having it, to not seems an oversight
Ah, Max spoke to Noah about that separately? OK then. I wasn’t privy to that discussion, and was told otherwise, not directly by Noah though.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 03/31/2023 3:59 AM
his words: Noah said the slashing is really easy to implement
03:59
mostly cause noah seems to be a boss
😂 1
03:59
lol
03:59
im sure its not EASY for us
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Guard rails like no onboarding is no rewards or guard rails like not every onboard is equal?
I will say, an ability to slash treasury reserves does seem more dangerous to me than a feature that can temporarily impair ongoing earnings if misused. But this is not my area of expertise.
👍 1
04:00
And I would expect it to require an audit.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I will say, an ability to slash treasury reserves does seem more dangerous to me than a feature that can temporarily impair ongoing earnings if misused. But this is not my area of expertise.
It will be dangerous to allow rewards to unonboarded gateways
04:04
But I get your point
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Minimal isn’t nothing, so you can’t cherry pick what requires new audits and what doesn’t
A discussion with Noah yesterday about summing the paid onboarding fees Summing the onboarding fees is a lift and probably requires a re-audit of that contract. Since vehnt and dc burn are already part of the contract, it’s way easier to just change how we treat them mathematically. Its non trivial. .... and requires 1) Someone figure out how to accurately snapshot this from the old chain and 2) introducing a Cross-Program Invocation for every onboard that tracks the total amount paid per each subdao.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
A discussion with Noah yesterday about summing the paid onboarding fees Summing the onboarding fees is a lift and probably requires a re-audit of that contract. Since vehnt and dc burn are already part of the contract, it’s way easier to just change how we treat them mathematically. Its non trivial. .... and requires 1) Someone figure out how to accurately snapshot this from the old chain and 2) introducing a Cross-Program Invocation for every onboard that tracks the total amount paid per each subdao.
Snapshot is easy, just sum add_gateway txns staking fees
04:09
But I am a bit annoyed that Fdn unilaterally decided to not implement the spec and now try to change the spec
Avatar
Avatar
groot
But I am a bit annoyed that Fdn unilaterally decided to not implement the spec and now try to change the spec
Noah's been on a learning curve these last few months about the network itricacies not explicit in docs or HIPs.
Avatar
Just to return to the question of unonboarded gateways for a minute. The proposed solution to that in HIP-80 is that since all onboarding fees are set to $5 going forward, and onboarding fees are irrelevant to the DAO Utility Score going forward, and since MOBILE Hotspots did already burn $40, we just, as a one-time exception, consider all MOBILE Hotspots that have been onboarded to IOT to be also properly onboarded to MOBILE already. Any MOBILE Hotspot that isn’t already onboarded would have to burn $5 towards IOT and $5 towards MOBILE if it wants to onboard on both networks. As manufacturers have already budgeted $40 per Hotspot, that’s no lift for them. On the one hand, this is a Christmas present to MOBILE, though it provides no benefit going forward. (As onboards no longer count towards the Score.) On the other hand, this is a Christmas present to IOT, as it enables new low-cost onboardings for those $99 LoRa Hotspots that are getting ready to ship, which will help grow the IOT network. Its only a drawback if we hope to bring value to HNT by burning onboarding fees, rather than bringing value to HNT by growing the networks. I reject that point of view. (edited)
Avatar
I understand and accept that, but that crucial fact is lost along the way. Instead we throw a few HIPs out there and call them a necessity pre-migration while it isn’t (or shouldn’t be). (edited)
Avatar
Honestly the V factor as modified per JMF is, actually, a necessity pre-migration, in that it would be a pretty harsh modification to drop in after people have locked their HNT for 48 months. I apologize for not having thought to motivate JMF previously to think about these things again.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Honestly the V factor as modified per JMF is, actually, a necessity pre-migration, in that it would be a pretty harsh modification to drop in after people have locked their HNT for 48 months. I apologize for not having thought to motivate JMF previously to think about these things again.
I wouldn't say it was your job to point JMF to the problem of the non-discounted veHNT in the V factor earlier. I also don't think it is only the HIPs authors' responsibility to correct problems of their HIPs, once they are approved. I pointed the potential problem out months ago (not specifically to JMF but in general), but no one picked it up. Iirc, someone (Waveform? Guttentag?) pointed out the problem with the missing onboarding fees long time ago, too, it also took ages until someone started working on a solution. These things happen. Moving forward, the question rather is, how can the community get better with regard to reacting on potential problems someone points out. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/730243559873052754/1069272308558082119 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Honestly the V factor as modified per JMF is, actually, a necessity pre-migration, in that it would be a pretty harsh modification to drop in after people have locked their HNT for 48 months. I apologize for not having thought to motivate JMF previously to think about these things again.
We have a very different interpretation of necessity. If the chain/system blows up or is the system otherwise severely negatively impacted, that would be a necessity. Things being 'harsh' or other subjective terms, not a necessity. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
We have a very different interpretation of necessity. If the chain/system blows up or is the system otherwise severely negatively impacted, that would be a necessity. Things being 'harsh' or other subjective terms, not a necessity. (edited)
I think “necessity” is a sliding scale, and I’m perfectly happy to recognize that our opinions differ where on that scale the issue of the V factor sits. My view is that it’s important to change the V factor, and that it will become much more difficult—and divisive—to do so after transition, because people will have made commitents based on the previous definition. Whether that makes it a “necessity” is certainly open to debate. The only thing that is necessary, in the end, is that we will all die someday.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think “necessity” is a sliding scale, and I’m perfectly happy to recognize that our opinions differ where on that scale the issue of the V factor sits. My view is that it’s important to change the V factor, and that it will become much more difficult—and divisive—to do so after transition, because people will have made commitents based on the previous definition. Whether that makes it a “necessity” is certainly open to debate. The only thing that is necessary, in the end, is that we will all die someday.
And pay taxes, anyway, it is only ‘important to do before the migration’ if you start everything from the premise that it must change.
05:24
I’m not convinced the changes proposed here are because they are better as the foundation they are built on is mostly guesswork and assumptions. It comes across as a ‘we have this coding challenge, lets make it disappear’
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I wouldn't say it was your job to point JMF to the problem of the non-discounted veHNT in the V factor earlier. I also don't think it is only the HIPs authors' responsibility to correct problems of their HIPs, once they are approved. I pointed the potential problem out months ago (not specifically to JMF but in general), but no one picked it up. Iirc, someone (Waveform? Guttentag?) pointed out the problem with the missing onboarding fees long time ago, too, it also took ages until someone started working on a solution. These things happen. Moving forward, the question rather is, how can the community get better with regard to reacting on potential problems someone points out. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/730243559873052754/1069272308558082119 (edited)
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I recognize that it’s not optimal that we are trying to get these changes approved on such short notice. It would have been nice if JMF had brought this up last month or last year, and it would have nice if the rest of us had properly investigated the question earlier and successfully brought people’s attention to it. But it seems he has several other jobs besides writing HIPs, as do many of us. You do what you can.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I have to say @Max - Just Max I am having a hard time getting past your argument that DC burn is the cost of receiving initial stimulus as a subDAO. I think in this HIP we don't really have a mechanism for stimulating a subDAO that's "just starting up". It's important that we reflect on whether we're just trying to solve the present MOBILE vs IOT situation (which I think we certainly are trying to do) or whether we're thinking longer-term about how to make Helium DAO attractive to newcomers. At least when DC burn is part of the equation, we have a mechanism for stimulating upstarts, in a way where they also have to bring something tangible to the table. It's a fair proposition where both parties stand to benefit. I do fear we've lost that with our changes here, and I don't know how to correct for it with the new formula, other than just setting an arbitrary floor for every new subDAO, which feels suboptimal as the subDAO doesn't have to bring anything to the table. I'd love to hear @JMF's thoughts on this as he was always a strong proponent of a "bootstrap allocation" in early iterations of HIP 51. He recognized the importance of providing stimulus to new subDAOs. (edited)
EdB-charlietango 03/31/2023 6:32 AM
I think the rate of onboarding could be an interesting calculation for use in stimulating a subDAO that's just starting up. Probably a max overall cap needs to be in place for equitable distribution. We could look back at IoT onboarding as a helpful determinator. Perhaps there's also some room for resX application of adjusting rewards locally...as in depressing localized IOT earnings to allow for MOBILE earnings. This would solve the regional disparity of MOBILE. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I will say, an ability to slash treasury reserves does seem more dangerous to me than a feature that can temporarily impair ongoing earnings if misused. But this is not my area of expertise.
Yeah to clarify it’s easy to add but really fkn hard to figure out who or what holds that authority. And is a constant security concern
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
I think the rate of onboarding could be an interesting calculation for use in stimulating a subDAO that's just starting up. Probably a max overall cap needs to be in place for equitable distribution. We could look back at IoT onboarding as a helpful determinator. Perhaps there's also some room for resX application of adjusting rewards locally...as in depressing localized IOT earnings to allow for MOBILE earnings. This would solve the regional disparity of MOBILE. (edited)
I don’t understand this, but it sounds like it’s out of scope for HIP-80. Also I don’t think there is a way for Helium DAO governance, which is concerned with HNT issuance, to influence the local distribution of DNT issuance, which is a matter of subDAO governance.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Ah, Max spoke to Noah about that separately? OK then. I wasn’t privy to that discussion, and was told otherwise, not directly by Noah though.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 7:48 AM
Yes. Read your channel. It was also discussed publicly on Twitter.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
An argument that has been proposed for the alternative DAO Utility Score Max was discussing is that it provides an easier on-ramp to new subDAOs. I think that is incorrect. Here are a few numbers for that, assuming that IOT were to become the dominant subDAO and therefore have a large portion of veHNT delegated to it, and using the $75,000 Floor parameter proposed in HIP-80. To the extent that IOT were less dominant and MOBILE more so, the effect of the Floor parameter would be less.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 7:54 AM
The score I proposed favors IOT more from the start. It is more fair in the sense that a new subDAO has the ability to close the gap with IOT by onboarding more devices. My proposal also only touched the A score because I haven’t seen any data on the V score and the need to change it. You’re comparing apples to oranges by adding the V score which I have no opinion on to prove your point. Then show a screenshot of a very limit model proving your point in your ideal conditions. I echo groot’s sentiment that adding a bunch of arbitrary numbers that feel right and telling everyone to shut up and pass this 2 days after the original migration date isn’t how we do things. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The score I proposed favors IOT more from the start. It is more fair in the sense that a new subDAO has the ability to close the gap with IOT by onboarding more devices. My proposal also only touched the A score because I haven’t seen any data on the V score and the need to change it. You’re comparing apples to oranges by adding the V score which I have no opinion on to prove your point. Then show a screenshot of a very limit model proving your point in your ideal conditions. I echo groot’s sentiment that adding a bunch of arbitrary numbers that feel right and telling everyone to shut up and pass this 2 days after the original migration date isn’t how we do things. (edited)
"suggesting", "proposing" is not "telling"/"commanding"
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
"suggesting", "proposing" is not "telling"/"commanding"
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:13 AM
Proposing, not reading an arguments against it then saying no good argument has been made because you didn’t read it is no different.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Proposing, not reading an arguments against it then saying no good argument has been made because you didn’t read it is no different.
Noted what you said. I'll let the two of you hash that out. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The score I proposed favors IOT more from the start. It is more fair in the sense that a new subDAO has the ability to close the gap with IOT by onboarding more devices. My proposal also only touched the A score because I haven’t seen any data on the V score and the need to change it. You’re comparing apples to oranges by adding the V score which I have no opinion on to prove your point. Then show a screenshot of a very limit model proving your point in your ideal conditions. I echo groot’s sentiment that adding a bunch of arbitrary numbers that feel right and telling everyone to shut up and pass this 2 days after the original migration date isn’t how we do things. (edited)
Well, what is your proposal, exactly? The only complete summary I’m aware of is the summary I wrote here: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1091118717510897715
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:14 AM
I don’t even under the point of making bad faith arguments to get a HIP passed. Is there some HIP cookie you get for passing a HIP I’m unaware of?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t even under the point of making bad faith arguments to get a HIP passed. Is there some HIP cookie you get for passing a HIP I’m unaware of?
I interpret this differently (not as bad faith).
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The score I proposed favors IOT more from the start. It is more fair in the sense that a new subDAO has the ability to close the gap with IOT by onboarding more devices. My proposal also only touched the A score because I haven’t seen any data on the V score and the need to change it. You’re comparing apples to oranges by adding the V score which I have no opinion on to prove your point. Then show a screenshot of a very limit model proving your point in your ideal conditions. I echo groot’s sentiment that adding a bunch of arbitrary numbers that feel right and telling everyone to shut up and pass this 2 days after the original migration date isn’t how we do things. (edited)
You can propose anything you want, including whatever V factor or other factor you think is useful. I don’t see the value in discussing how one formula for the DAO Utility Score would be better than HIP-80 in one circumstance, and another proposal for the DAO Utility Score would be better than HIP-80 in another circumstance. In the end, we can only have one DAO Utility Score. If you want to propose a DAO Utility Score, propose it, and maybe supply some data to support it, and we can discuss it.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I interpret this differently (not as bad faith).
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:18 AM
The comparison models using v score changes and limited scenarios was bad faith. I very clearly said I have no opinion on the V factor and open to changing it. It’s too much to change for one HIP though. Let’s say I like the removal of A but want a linear V, do I vote for or against it?
Avatar
There is no unified suggestion? (I acknowledge that I may have missed this) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The score I proposed favors IOT more from the start. It is more fair in the sense that a new subDAO has the ability to close the gap with IOT by onboarding more devices. My proposal also only touched the A score because I haven’t seen any data on the V score and the need to change it. You’re comparing apples to oranges by adding the V score which I have no opinion on to prove your point. Then show a screenshot of a very limit model proving your point in your ideal conditions. I echo groot’s sentiment that adding a bunch of arbitrary numbers that feel right and telling everyone to shut up and pass this 2 days after the original migration date isn’t how we do things. (edited)
Regarding your statement “The score I proposed favors IOT more from the start.” Which Score exactly? The one I linked to above? And it favors IOT more than which other Score? Looking at my messy spreadsheets, I don’t see the numbers to support that.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The comparison models using v score changes and limited scenarios was bad faith. I very clearly said I have no opinion on the V factor and open to changing it. It’s too much to change for one HIP though. Let’s say I like the removal of A but want a linear V, do I vote for or against it?
How is it bad faith? HIP-80 proposes a DAO Utility Score, which is different from the DAO Utility Score introduced by HIP-51. I’m comparing the two. In good faith, other people can also propose DAO Utility Score formulas, and we can compare all of them. (It helps if I’m not the only one actually doing any calculations.)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The comparison models using v score changes and limited scenarios was bad faith. I very clearly said I have no opinion on the V factor and open to changing it. It’s too much to change for one HIP though. Let’s say I like the removal of A but want a linear V, do I vote for or against it?
In finalized drafts that are up for a vote, package deals can problematic, admittedly. In my mind, both aspects are still open to constructive debate. If they are not, I missed something. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Regarding your statement “The score I proposed favors IOT more from the start.” Which Score exactly? The one I linked to above? And it favors IOT more than which other Score? Looking at my messy spreadsheets, I don’t see the numbers to support that.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:22 AM
Before the roots, my proposal gives IOT an A score of about 50,000,000. HIP-51 gives the IOT an A score of about 16,000,000
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The comparison models using v score changes and limited scenarios was bad faith. I very clearly said I have no opinion on the V factor and open to changing it. It’s too much to change for one HIP though. Let’s say I like the removal of A but want a linear V, do I vote for or against it?
Well, if a HIP is proposed, you vote for or against it, yes. We can also propose other HIPs, and we can vote on them too. Right now, Arman, JMF and I are proposing HIP-80.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:23 AM
I don’t think Arman is in favor of this HIP as written per his statements in here last night
08:24
To my knowledge JMF hasn’t spoken in this channel nor has he answered my text so I don’t know where he still stands on it
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t think Arman is in favor of this HIP as written per his statements in here last night
I will start catching up on backscroll in the next 20 and will respond to this/current state of discussion (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t think Arman is in favor of this HIP as written per his statements in here last night
He is coauthor! HIP-80 is proposed by JMF, Arman and me. We discussed things for hours over the weekend, and we all put our names on it. If you would like to suggest Arman should argue with me about the contents of HIP-80, feel free to tag him, but I think your comment is really a bit off base.
08:25
Oh, there he is. 🤣
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:25 AM
Bro, just read the channel
Avatar
Max and I did have some back and forth recently where we discussed concerns
08:25
Anyway, back in a bit
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:26 AM
Also for the record the slashing idea was @BFGNeil - Trackpac.io’s idea. I just liked it
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also for the record the slashing idea was @BFGNeil - Trackpac.io’s idea. I just liked it
I’m aware of that. I’ve discussed the slashing here, and I don’t see a need to go over it again. I have no quarrel with Neil’s statements on the matter.
Avatar
I do believe the "oh write your own HIP" should be used more sparingly unless you really think it is a good idea to just have 73 competing HIPs that all have 3 word diffs. The process is based on collaboration and while that doesn't mean you have to accept every edit to your proposal a blanket "write your own HIP this is well thought out (by 3 people behind closed doors)" does not correspond to the spirit of HIPs
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:31 AM
It solves the problem of no MOBILE burn that we (or 3 dudes over the weekend) set out to fix with this HIP. I don’t recall a gradual burn though, I feel like I suggested some sort of escrow for the treasury until the debt was paid. There is precedent for large one-time HNT burns to fix onboarding. Calchip did it in late 2020 or early 2021
Avatar
I'm working from the assumption that without this HIP we proceed as HIP51 intended, which means no rewards to MOBILE hotspots which aren't onboarded and thus no issues with the protocol score either.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:33 AM
I’d agree with that interpretation. If the MOBILE subDAO doesn’t care to fix that, it doesn’t care to fix that
Avatar
Nobody has yet come up with a decent argument why that assumption is false, apart from some people saying implementing stuff is hard and blah blah.
08:34
All of the stuff in Helium is and always has been hard to implement, that's not an argument
08:35
I've also thought about the argument that they have been getting rewards thusfar, well, they can continue being rewarded MOBILE, just no HNT in the treasury.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I've also thought about the argument that they have been getting rewards thusfar, well, they can continue being rewarded MOBILE, just no HNT in the treasury.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:36 AM
This is a good point. They basically just are a stand alone SPL token at that point that happened to move over to solana when the helium chain halted
08:36
Honestly, kinda bullish on MOBILE if that happens
08:37
Nova holds too much mobile to make that happen but it would likely be a net positive for MOBILE
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I do believe the "oh write your own HIP" should be used more sparingly unless you really think it is a good idea to just have 73 competing HIPs that all have 3 word diffs. The process is based on collaboration and while that doesn't mean you have to accept every edit to your proposal a blanket "write your own HIP this is well thought out (by 3 people behind closed doors)" does not correspond to the spirit of HIPs
HIP-80 is a proposal. We can certainly discuss all kinds of things. Is the $75,000 Floor the right value? I don’t know, it just seemed like a good value to pick based on the general idea that we should align with the spirit of HIP-51. Maybe a different value is better? I’m open to that. Anybody can propose it, and ideally show some numbers to back up the argument. I don’t believe the Score as proposed by Max (if I did get that right https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1091118717510897715) is preferable to HIP-80. So what is the discussion here, actually? If it is better, let’s discuss how, with numbers to back it up. An argument has been made that Max’ proposal would favor new subDAOs joining the Helium DAO. My calculation, posted here https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1091307717550952478 don’t seem to back that up. Are we dropping that argument? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I've also thought about the argument that they have been getting rewards thusfar, well, they can continue being rewarded MOBILE, just no HNT in the treasury.
If in fact that is how it goes, then that would definitely push MOBILE to decouple from Helium and HNT. That would mean that the subDAO would have 5G subscribers pay by burning MOBILE instead of burning HNT. I don’t think we want that.
Avatar
That's still the starting point though, HIP51 is where we stand. You want to change it with this HIP and that is fine, but stop acting like a change is a done deal and we're just discussing what the change will be.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:41 AM
My argument is we are codifying a number to be the floor that you just said you don’t know if it’s a good idea or the right number. How can we pass that and stick to it for 4 years if we’re not that confident in it. I then created a proposal because that’s what was asked of me, to come up with something else rather than saying I don’t like it. Now the other proposal which I’ve said isn’t much better and came up with in like an hour is worse so therefor we must pass HIP-80
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That's still the starting point though, HIP51 is where we stand. You want to change it with this HIP and that is fine, but stop acting like a change is a done deal and we're just discussing what the change will be.
I’m just making an argument that it would be a good idea to change things from where they stand now.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I’m just making an argument that it would be a good idea to change things from where they stand now.
I'm not seeing it, and when pressed that HIP80 had no graphs you showed me how it is better than max's proposal but nothing comparing it to what you're actually battling, HIP51.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I'm not seeing it, and when pressed that HIP80 had no graphs you showed me how it is better than max's proposal but nothing comparing it to what you're actually battling, HIP51.
08:44
I absolutely welcome other people doing comparisons, I may well have missed something.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:44 AM
So to summarize: - The floor is set at $75,000 but we’re not sure if that’s the right number. - The V factor must change but Chris hasn’t seen the math saying that but trusts JMF is right. Sounds like we need to rush to change those things immediately
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Giving a runway until an arbitrary date in 2027 is ridiculous though. If a subDAO puts out 2 million hotspots next year it should scale down IOT under HIP-51. It’s dishonest to say this is not a change from HIP-51
If another subDAO puts out 2 million hotspots next year, wouldn't we expect a lot of veHNT delegated towards it, taking care of "scaling down" IOT?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
a million nodes? really?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If in fact that is how it goes, then that would definitely push MOBILE to decouple from Helium and HNT. That would mean that the subDAO would have 5G subscribers pay by burning MOBILE instead of burning HNT. I don’t think we want that.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:47 AM
I guess the question is why would MOBILE want to stay? It obviously won’t leave because Nova wouldn’t vote for a decoupling and hold enough MOBILE to ensure it stays. This is the problem with favoring one subDAO over another.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I absolutely welcome other people doing comparisons, I may well have missed something.
It's not even correct, because on the MOBILE Side the actual rewards would be 0 since no onboarded hotspots 🤷
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It's not even correct, because on the MOBILE Side the actual rewards would be 0 since no onboarded hotspots 🤷
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:49 AM
The A score would be 1 not 0
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The A score would be 1 not 0
There are no hotspots to receive any rewards since there won't be any onboarded hotspots
08:49
no burn = no rewards
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:49 AM
Max 1, Active devices
Avatar
You can't be active if you don't get rewards, you can't get rewards if you didn't burn onboarding fee.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Max 1, Active devices
It is supposedly about a different rule (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There are no hotspots to receive any rewards since there won't be any onboarded hotspots
Can you point to the where in a hip this is codified?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:50 AM
But someone holds the MOBILE. There’s nothing saying DNTs have to go to the miners at all
Avatar
Changing everything because a) Fdn implemented it wrong and b) a subDAO doesn't want to pay onboarding fees and then wrapping it in something nice 🤷
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Can you point to the where in a hip this is codified?
I can point you to the code that says sorry this hotspot isn't known to the blockchain so wtf is this?
08:52
or the code that says 'staking fee invalid' so no onboarding for you
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:52 AM
I agree with almost everything Groot is saying but I think the treasury fund still gets funded and the MOBILE still goes somewhere. Likely to the radios still.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I can point you to the code that says sorry this hotspot isn't known to the blockchain so wtf is this?
Wait, I believe you said earlier today you are referring to a rule laid out in - what, HIP 51? Did I get you wrong, you are referring to an (incorrect?) implementation, not a HIP text? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:53 AM
Have you tried asking Sean Carey?
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
Definitely wrong channel, sorry.
08:54
Maybe #5g-cbrs? (edited)
Avatar
My summary of the state of this HIP - Changing V score to sqrt is good because it prevents sheer dominance of one subDAO via voting while still allowing for market-driven competition - The active devices/DC burn part of the HIP 51 DAO Utility Score has the following issues: -- "Active devices" is vague, potentially gameable and requires an oracle -- Pure DC burn is tough because it allows subDAOs to be grandfathered into a high score even if they are no longer active -- MOBILE hotspots have not paid any "separate" onboarding fees past the default $40 - New HIP80 DAO Utility Score is controversial b/c the floor is ambiguous and it does slightly change the dynamics agreed to in HIP 51 - There is consensus that onboarding fees should be more flexible, but not that they should be fixed at $5
08:54
Please add/correct anything I missed
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Wait, I believe you said earlier today you are referring to a rule laid out in - what, HIP 51? Did I get you wrong, you are referring to an (incorrect?) implementation, not a HIP text? (edited)
If you only accept things in a HIP 90% of the network is just 'wing it'
08:55
This check has been in there since pre-hip, so I think that suffices
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
hey boss, head over to #5g-cbrs . this is the incorrect channel.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Have you tried asking Sean Carey?
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:55 AM
This was underrated joke. Im sad no one laughed
Avatar
Avatar
groot
This check has been in there since pre-hip, so I think that suffices
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:56 AM
Yea but I think technically mobile can just do it anyway and then it’s up to Helium DAO to step in
Avatar
The real problem is that the smart contract has been audited without the required code
08:57
It just assumes every hotspot that currently exists has the same onboarding fee burned while it hasn't
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If you only accept things in a HIP 90% of the network is just 'wing it'
It is not about what I accept, I just wanted to know the "status"/"location" of the rule.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
It is not about what I accept, I just wanted to know the "status"/"location" of the rule.
codified under consensus for 1_700_000 blocks.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 8:57 AM
We’re kinda fucked on that front. I don’t think it’s wise to push migration again. I also was against announcing a new date but got overruled.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
codified under consensus for 1_700_000 blocks.
So, just to understand: You are referring that single, not-onboarded hotspots don't get HNT rewards? But with the subDAO structure, HNT does go treasuries anyway, not to hotspots, yes? So how does "hotspots not getting rewards" lead to less HNT rewards going towards the treasury as opposed to the share based on the subDAO utility score? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:02 AM
To this point, a hotspot also can’t earn without an asserted location. Would argue the onboard is $50 not $40.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
So, just to understand: You are referring that single, not-onboarded hotspots don't get HNT rewards? But with the subDAO structure, HNT does go treasuries anyway, not to hotspots, yes? So how does "hotspots not getting rewards" lead to less HNT rewards going towards the treasury as opposed to the share based on the subDAO utility score? (edited)
Fair point, their veHNT portion would still count.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
My summary of the state of this HIP - Changing V score to sqrt is good because it prevents sheer dominance of one subDAO via voting while still allowing for market-driven competition - The active devices/DC burn part of the HIP 51 DAO Utility Score has the following issues: -- "Active devices" is vague, potentially gameable and requires an oracle -- Pure DC burn is tough because it allows subDAOs to be grandfathered into a high score even if they are no longer active -- MOBILE hotspots have not paid any "separate" onboarding fees past the default $40 - New HIP80 DAO Utility Score is controversial b/c the floor is ambiguous and it does slightly change the dynamics agreed to in HIP 51 - There is consensus that onboarding fees should be more flexible, but not that they should be fixed at $5
Floor: To comment on that, I don’t understand how you mean the Floor is ambiguous. It’s $75,000/month assumed burn for IOT. We can certainly pick a different value instead. That was just meant to be a reasonable compromise in light of past expectations. We could also change the time limit on the Floor, which currently would go away 1 August 2027. $5 onboarding: Per HIP-80, the onboarding fees are irrelevant to the DAO Utility Score. Some onboarding fee is required to guard against infinite spam Hotspots in the case of a compromised Maker key. It should be nominal, so as not to limit network growth artificially. subDAOs are free to assess other fees anyway, such as location assert in LoRa, which don’t count towards the Score in HIP-51 either. So we can make it a minimum, though which subDAO would want to pay more to no benefit, and we can make it $1 if people agree that would not be a risk.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
My summary of the state of this HIP - Changing V score to sqrt is good because it prevents sheer dominance of one subDAO via voting while still allowing for market-driven competition - The active devices/DC burn part of the HIP 51 DAO Utility Score has the following issues: -- "Active devices" is vague, potentially gameable and requires an oracle -- Pure DC burn is tough because it allows subDAOs to be grandfathered into a high score even if they are no longer active -- MOBILE hotspots have not paid any "separate" onboarding fees past the default $40 - New HIP80 DAO Utility Score is controversial b/c the floor is ambiguous and it does slightly change the dynamics agreed to in HIP 51 - There is consensus that onboarding fees should be more flexible, but not that they should be fixed at $5
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:04 AM
Agree with this summary. Think an onboard floor should be implemented, not a fixed onboard fee.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Floor: To comment on that, I don’t understand how you mean the Floor is ambiguous. It’s $75,000/month assumed burn for IOT. We can certainly pick a different value instead. That was just meant to be a reasonable compromise in light of past expectations. We could also change the time limit on the Floor, which currently would go away 1 August 2027. $5 onboarding: Per HIP-80, the onboarding fees are irrelevant to the DAO Utility Score. Some onboarding fee is required to guard against infinite spam Hotspots in the case of a compromised Maker key. It should be nominal, so as not to limit network growth artificially. subDAOs are free to assess other fees anyway, such as location assert in LoRa, which don’t count towards the Score in HIP-51 either. So we can make it a minimum, though which subDAO would want to pay more to no benefit, and we can make it $1 if people agree that would not be a risk.
I still don't follow how you get from "onboarding fees don't matter for protocol score anymore" to "so $5 is sufficient"
09:05
By that logic it should always have been $5 since it wasn't relevant to protocol score before either because there was no protocol score (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Floor: To comment on that, I don’t understand how you mean the Floor is ambiguous. It’s $75,000/month assumed burn for IOT. We can certainly pick a different value instead. That was just meant to be a reasonable compromise in light of past expectations. We could also change the time limit on the Floor, which currently would go away 1 August 2027. $5 onboarding: Per HIP-80, the onboarding fees are irrelevant to the DAO Utility Score. Some onboarding fee is required to guard against infinite spam Hotspots in the case of a compromised Maker key. It should be nominal, so as not to limit network growth artificially. subDAOs are free to assess other fees anyway, such as location assert in LoRa, which don’t count towards the Score in HIP-51 either. So we can make it a minimum, though which subDAO would want to pay more to no benefit, and we can make it $1 if people agree that would not be a risk.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:05 AM
SubDAOs can still use onboard fee for security. Panther X stopped gaming when $50 became a tough hurdle to clear before getting caught. $5 makes it 10x easier to churn keys.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I still don't follow how you get from "onboarding fees don't matter for protocol score anymore" to "so $5 is sufficient"
That’s based on the assumption that we don’t need fees for another purpose. What would that be? I think at this stage it’s not wise to try to achieve HNT burn by charging onboard fees. What is your position on that?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
SubDAOs can still use onboard fee for security. Panther X stopped gaming when $50 became a tough hurdle to clear before getting caught. $5 makes it 10x easier to churn keys.
JMF needs cheaper hotspots though, so I guess that's the bus-sized gap in the logic.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s based on the assumption that we don’t need fees for another purpose. What would that be? I think at this stage it’s not wise to try to achieve HNT burn by charging onboard fees. What is your position on that?
Security, spam, etc.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
JMF needs cheaper hotspots though, so I guess that's the bus-sized gap in the logic.
capcom is eager to ship the $99 Wi-Fi gateways for MOBILE, too.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
capcom is eager to ship the $99 Wi-Fi gateways for MOBILE, too.
So it's 2 people that fit the hole, ok.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:08 AM
Also worth noting, and nothing against JMF, but “his hosts” did run the largest Pollen gaming ring. Don’t know if it’s wise to reduce securities against gaming. Those hosts may hear about it and try something. (edited)
👀 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
JMF needs cheaper hotspots though, so I guess that's the bus-sized gap in the logic.
It’s Charles Fayal who wants the cheap LoRa gateways. Even brothers have different opinions sometimes. JMF did not argue strongly either way on the onboarding fee as far as I recall… 🙃
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It’s Charles Fayal who wants the cheap LoRa gateways. Even brothers have different opinions sometimes. JMF did not argue strongly either way on the onboarding fee as far as I recall… 🙃
Regardless, it's 2 people who want cheaper hotspots and they're free to have an opinion, doesn't make the bus-sized hole in your logic any better. Just come out and say it instead of trying to pack it into something that is supposed to sound logical. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
capcom is eager to ship the $99 Wi-Fi gateways for MOBILE, too.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:09 AM
Oh good can we stay on this point?
Avatar
Do people feel strongly about this? We can submit a PR right now that $5 is a minimum. I believe a minimum is a good idea if we don’t set a fixed $5 fee. (Actually hashc0de pointed the spam issue out to me.) Should it be a higher minimum? I think that would be painful for $99 Hotspots, which have been proposed for both MOBILE and IOT. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:11 AM
Creating an onboard floor rather than a fixed price allows for dynamic onboard fees. This was a huge issue to keep track of which devices got onboarded for what and for how much and if they were online or not. The total DC burn was proposed to simplify that issue
Avatar
I do think the $5 minimum instead of constant is a good change. HIP 80 is a change to the Helium DAO, not the subDAOs themselves. They can submit further proposals to change their onboarding fees if they wish (edited)
09:12
If nothing else, it removes a needless point of contention
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:12 AM
My only suggestion on the minimum is should it diminish as less HNT gets emitted?
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I do think the $5 minimum instead of constant is a good change. HIP 80 is a change to the Helium DAO, not the subDAOs themselves. They can submit further proposals to change their onboarding fees if they wish (edited)
with this HIP having a higher fee hurts you as a subDAO so why would someone do that? (edited)
Avatar
As long as the Utility Score doesn’t take the onboarding fees into account, the Helium DAO basically doesn’t care at all if subDAOs charge higher fees. It just, according to one point of view, makes their life harder, and there may be other points of view that it has benefits.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:13 AM
My suggestion was $40 dating back to 8/1/19 with a series of halvings with the network so it would be $20 today and $10 in 4 months
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
My only suggestion on the minimum is should it diminish as less HNT gets emitted?
No need to overcomplicate things trying to predict what might need to happen in the future more than we already are. The minimum can be changed by a further vote if necessary
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
My only suggestion on the minimum is should it diminish as less HNT gets emitted?
There’s always inflation to deal with that. Troll
Avatar
The only thing that will accomplish is IOT continuing to have a $40 onboarding and MOBILE to start off with a $5
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:14 AM
One of the arguments for 2 year halvings was hardware costs should half every 2 years. Just trying to keep it consistent
Avatar
Also, the current code can't cope with differing onboarding fees
Avatar
The thought with $5 is that it’s hard to imagine a total cost of deployment such that $5 is a painful component.
Avatar
So what you would do is first onboard a million devices for $5, then 'vote' to have it be $1000 and you're done, you now have one million devices be worth $1000 each. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So what you would do is first onboard a million devices for $5, then 'vote' to have it be $1000 and you're done, you now have one million devices be worth $1000 each. (edited)
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:15 AM
Yup. This is why total burn was chosen as well
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Also, the current code can't cope with differing onboarding fees
Which code? If we implement the Score from HIP-80, only the onboarding feature itself needs to deal with the fee.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Which code? If we implement the Score from HIP-80, only the onboarding feature itself needs to deal with the fee.
Oh we're still package dealing, ok.
09:15
Forgot that we're trying to sweeten the deal with irrelevant other items Troll
Avatar
Is there any chance that the Foundation can be made to match the $5 per gateway?
09:16
It was their mistake; no? (edited)
Avatar
you got to be kidding me.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Is there any chance that the Foundation can be made to match the $5 per gateway?
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:17 AM
Wrong hat. We don’t care who pays. This is Helium DAO not MOBILE subDAO
Avatar
you want an ice cream with that order too?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:17 AM
I think we should all get 10,000 HNT for contributing to the HIP
Avatar
Just to get a temperature in the room, does anyone favor this plan: - Keep HIP 51 score but work on resolving the "active devices vs. total DC burn" issue - Add square root to V score - Change no onboarding fees, MOBILE is $40 for now - Resolve the MOBILE activation debt by either forgiving it, making someone pay it or deducting it from the treasury (HIP 78) The reason I bring this up is because it's most likely the lowest friction path forward with the fewest code changes
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:18 AM
If Chris wants to throw that in the HIP that the 6 of us get 10,000 HNT each I’ll drop my concerns
Avatar
No rewards to my hotspot until I burn $5. Foundation matches when we switch it to total fees paid.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Just to get a temperature in the room, does anyone favor this plan: - Keep HIP 51 score but work on resolving the "active devices vs. total DC burn" issue - Add square root to V score - Change no onboarding fees, MOBILE is $40 for now - Resolve the MOBILE activation debt by either forgiving it, making someone pay it or deducting it from the treasury (HIP 78) The reason I bring this up is because it's most likely the lowest friction path forward with the fewest code changes
$80 for 22 radios on two gateways; easy peasy.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:20 AM
$5 for a $2,000 radio is ridiculous
09:20
Not this discussion though
Avatar
I love how when Helium started the $40 onboarding fee was 'cost of doing business' for a $200-$250 device but $5 on a $2000 radio is contentious.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:21 AM
Im saying it’s too low
Avatar
And I am saying Max needs to shoosh with the “too low” bit!
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Just to get a temperature in the room, does anyone favor this plan: - Keep HIP 51 score but work on resolving the "active devices vs. total DC burn" issue - Add square root to V score - Change no onboarding fees, MOBILE is $40 for now - Resolve the MOBILE activation debt by either forgiving it, making someone pay it or deducting it from the treasury (HIP 78) The reason I bring this up is because it's most likely the lowest friction path forward with the fewest code changes
- Not strongly opposed to abolishing A term. - Pro add square root to V score - Pro reducing onboaring fees - No strong preference how to solve the MOBIL activation debt. So, no, not my favorite plan. Can't we have temp vote on at least some of the different aspects in isolation? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:24 AM
Maybe I’m an idiot and don’t understand math but if we square root both factors don’t they cancel each other out?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
- Not strongly opposed to abolishing A term. - Pro add square root to V score - Pro reducing onboaring fees - No strong preference how to solve the MOBIL activation debt. So, no, not my favorite plan. Can't we have temp vote on at least some of the different aspects in isolation? (edited)
Post each item and put a check and an x.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Maybe I’m an idiot and don’t understand math but if we square root both factors don’t they cancel each other out?
No, it means they're both dampened at the upper extremes (edited)
Avatar
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:25 AM
That makes sense.
09:25
If there’s no A score the minimum will be the number though
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Maybe I’m an idiot and don’t understand math but if we square root both factors don’t they cancel each other out?
It reduces the range of possible values of (V value MOBILE) divided by (V Value IOT). (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:25 AM
Can we just make the minimum $5 it’s own HIP, get that passed then litigate the rest? (edited)
Avatar
Temp votes: 👇 👇 👇 (edited)
09:27
- Add square root to V
👍 7
Avatar
Can it be “$5 per device” with “as we understand now, device means gateway” and then we can litigate later that it is supposed to mean “radio”?
Avatar
- Keep HIP 51 score but work on resolving the "active devices vs. total DC burn" issue
👍 1
🇽 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Can it be “$5 per device” with “as we understand now, device means gateway” and then we can litigate later that it is supposed to mean “radio”?
There is no known way to securely onboard radios.
Avatar
- Change no onboarding fees, MOBILE is $40 for now
🇽 3
09:28
- Resolve the MOBILE activation debt by either forgiving it, making someone pay it or deducting it from the treasury (HIP 78) (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
There is no known way to securely onboard radios.
Insert “currently” and I will agree with you. 🙂
🤣 1
Avatar
There are no security chips on those radios
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
There is no known way to securely onboard radios.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:29 AM
Yes there is. There are unique serial numbers that come directly from the manufacturer and onboarded by Nova labs who also runs the POC oracles. If we can’t trust that, we can’t trust anything
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes there is. There are unique serial numbers that come directly from the manufacturer and onboarded by Nova labs who also runs the POC oracles. If we can’t trust that, we can’t trust anything
I’ll let you argue that with Noah.
Avatar
how about I don't trust anyone, is it still secure? if the answer is no then it's not secure.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:30 AM
Guys, and I cannot stress this enough, Sri is a fucking moron and he figured out how to tie NFTs to Pollen radios. It can’t be that hard
Avatar
Avatar
groot
how about I don't trust anyone, is it still secure? if the answer is no then it's not secure.
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:30 AM
Let me tell you about IOT POC then
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes there is. There are unique serial numbers that come directly from the manufacturer and onboarded by Nova labs who also runs the POC oracles. If we can’t trust that, we can’t trust anything
Seems easy enough for the gateway to settle the payment on behalf of the radio.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Let me tell you about IOT POC then
you won't ever hear me arguing that is secure
Avatar
Let's try to keep it on topic here
Avatar
So why is this urgent again, because MOBILE is hindered by it but they don't want to solve it by paying? 🙃
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:33 AM
Fair. My argument is if it’s good enough for IOT to run all of its POC it’s probably fine to tie an NFT to a radio
Avatar
I think one takeaway from this HIP (as well as many others in the past) is that we should keep HIPs minimal and not try to change seemingly unrelated stuff in the same HIP just because a HIP is a lot of work. It becomes less work when it's a simple yes-no question.
👆 1
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So why is this urgent again, because MOBILE is hindered by it but they don't want to solve it by paying? 🙃
The urgent part IMO is that we decide on a DAO Utility Score, and insofar it involves veHNT at all, it should be decided before landrush. The missing MOBILE fees led to a more thorough investigation of the Score, including modeling, which is how we finally got the idea how it could be simplified. It sure would have all been easier if we had all started a lot earlier. That includes at least 5 people I can think of. But that’s where we stand. BTW most of the things in HIP-80 are interrelated. Even the $5 fee (it’s a minimum now per the last PR) is related.
Avatar
Why though? Every decision that is made under consensus is made under consensus. Sure you may not like it that you locked up and are now getting something else, but that will be true for the minority of every decision going forward.
09:41
It’s like saying we can’t change poc because the validators don’t like it and they locked up
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:41 AM
Also those that locked their HNT into veHNT will be the ones voting on it
Avatar
True. Which is why some changes may be better made now, before incentives have been set for 48 months.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:42 AM
Those that wish to vote inline with their gaming of dao utility score can still vote to game dao utility score today without having to be locked in for 4 years
Avatar
Why is that better? If you are angry at every decision that doesn’t go your way just don’t lock up
09:44
I truly don’t understand why it is so important that this is before the lockup. There will be tons of changes in the future too, every one of them can be contentious.
09:44
In fact one can argue that those who actually locked up should be the ones voting on what it means to have locked up. Not the ones currently holding the HNT
👆 1
Avatar
It's not "before the lockup" IMO--it's "before DAO Utility Score goes live". It's going to be much harder to change it once it's already active
09:50
Currently the main thing we all seem to agree in is add square root to V
09:50
I'm seeing mixed feelings on removing A, and mixed feelings on the $75,000 floor
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
It's not "before the lockup" IMO--it's "before DAO Utility Score goes live". It's going to be much harder to change it once it's already active
Because…? We’re switching chains while running but this is too hard?
Avatar
It's not that it's technically hard, but that it's going to be significantly more political once the earnings are already flowing
09:52
Someone will always be on the winning and losing end of any change, in a very tangible way
Avatar
They will be winning and losing now, I don’t agree with the idea of ‘change it while they aren’t looking’
Avatar
It's not about change it while they're not looking. The reality is once an expectation is set (i.e. people see a certain number flowing into the subDAO), it sets a mental baseline. Doesn't matter what the change is--any change will simply be higher friction
👍 1
Avatar
That’s an argument, maybe put it in the HIP instead of a bunch of flawed logic to arrive at some predetermined conclusion
09:56
Trying to go from A to Z while skipping every step in between and calling QED isn’t what a HIP should be, yet many are that way.
Avatar
The impetus is to resolve the HIP 51 A score--it either needs to be significantly clarified or removed. The proposal here is removing it is simpler than clarifying it, while achieving similar overall effects for the subDAOs
Avatar
Our hand is forced by the migration date and a flawed contract is what you mean?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:58 AM
To be clear, I don’t know that we’re in agreement on the square root piece. Think that hinges on if A exists or not
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Our hand is forced by the migration date and a flawed contract is what you mean?
The migration date does impose a deadline
Avatar
Nice evasion, but the truth is we can’t keep the A as is because it won’t work. So now we get to pick our poison
Avatar
Yes, A doesn't work as it stands
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 9:59 AM
The migration date can be moved. It has been moved before by a committee vote. I don’t believe this issue should necessitate a move of the date. Therefore the migration does not actually impose a deadline.
Avatar
I'm operating under the assumption that the migration date can't be moved
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The migration date can be moved. It has been moved before by a committee vote. I don’t believe this issue should necessitate a move of the date. Therefore the migration does not actually impose a deadline.
It needs to be reaudited, probably.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:00 AM
Oh that’s a terrible assumption in Helium. The date can be moved next Thursday if the argument is strong enough
Avatar
So at least we can finally agree that we’re not proposing this because we think it is better, but because we have to.
Avatar
Implementing HIP 80 shouldn't require a reaudit--it would just be deleting some code, as Noah commented in this channel earlier
Avatar
Implementing 51 would need a reaudit
Avatar
No, it wouldn't. The smart contract is fine, but there's an "active devices" oracle for which active device is ambiguously defined
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:03 AM
Is it ambiguously defined? I thought it was defined as any device that participates in POC in the prior epoch
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
No, it wouldn't. The smart contract is fine, but there's an "active devices" oracle for which active device is ambiguously defined
The smart contract can’t discern a data only from a full nor a mobile hotspot that didn’t onboard anything afaik so wouldn’t call it ‘fine’
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Is it ambiguously defined? I thought it was defined as any device that participates in POC in the prior epoch
Avatar
You could theoretically feed the oracle 4 ‘hotspots’ for every full and 1 for a data only but that would be a hack
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:04 AM
Also, nothing against Noah because he’s digesting a huge amount of information all at once but kinda surprised he didn’t know the onboard fee was always 40. Would have thought foundation would set him up with a helium historian to ease the transition
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You could theoretically feed the oracle 4 ‘hotspots’ for every full and 1 for a data only but that would be a hack
Yeah, it's fine in the sense that it could work without a reaudit. Any improvements to make it more correct without hacks may require a reaudit
itsfine 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also, nothing against Noah because he’s digesting a huge amount of information all at once but kinda surprised he didn’t know the onboard fee was always 40. Would have thought foundation would set him up with a helium historian to ease the transition
Noah is doing a great job in a short period of time, couldn’t have found a better guy for the job. Doesn’t change that this particular item is wrong though
10:07
And it has been known to be wrong for quite a while too
Avatar
As for V vs. A, I think it's arguable that V plays the same role in the absence of A. If a subDAO is growing quickly and onboarding devices, market participants will see the growth and delegate to it
👍 1
Avatar
Thanks all for participating in this discussion. I have to sign out now, for the most part, until Monday. Let me just say that I would really, really appreciate it if people could actually model the effects of whatever is being proposed, including checking the models I’ve posted for errors.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:08 AM
My mistake 51 says the subDAO decides what’s active.
10:09
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
As for V vs. A, I think it's arguable that V plays the same role in the absence of A. If a subDAO is growing quickly and onboarding devices, market participants will see the growth and delegate to it
Except that you will have relatively lazy stake that can’t move unless it accepts losing 3x
🇽 2
Avatar
Yea that was probably an oversight in 51. Incentivizes subDAOs to say active = had rewards within the past year
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:09 AM
So I guess why wouldn’t IOT decide everyone is active?
Avatar
Exactly
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:09 AM
I know it has its flaws but all burn cleans that up at least
Avatar
That actually says active in a day though. It says rewarded in an epoch, which is a day. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:10 AM
Also thank you @ferebee. I do appreciate you writing these HIPs.
🙌 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Except that you will have relatively lazy stake that can’t move unless it accepts losing 3x
Not sure what you mean here?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Click to see attachment 🖼️
This.
10:11
Oh wait, wrong reply🫠
10:12
Redelegating to a different subDAO will make you lose your landrush bonus? That’s what ferebee implied when complaining about the harshness of having to change your delegation after the fact.
🇽 2
Avatar
Oh, no I don't think that's a thing. If it is, that's a surprise to me
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
As for V vs. A, I think it's arguable that V plays the same role in the absence of A. If a subDAO is growing quickly and onboarding devices, market participants will see the growth and delegate to it
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:12 AM
I don’t hate this argument but I think that invalidates the argument for the $75k floor
Avatar
Landrush bonus = veHNT multiplier. Has nothing to do with where/when you delegate
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:13 AM
Im also well aware it was my argument to begin with so of course I like it
Avatar
Interestingly there is no reason then that this should in any way change the perceptions if this is implemented/decided later
10:15
You just switch subDAO delegation
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:15 AM
Let’s think of the pros and cons here: If we protect LoRa it limits the upside of the Helium DAO as other solutions like IOTEX exist and are aggressively pushing to be what Helium DAO set out to be. If we don’t protect LoRa some people may leave to go to crankk which, I’ve spoken with the founders of crankk, and lol
Avatar
Or other more reputable iot networks, but yes.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:17 AM
LoRa can still be protected by the A score if we keep it or the V score since LoRa people hold more than half of the max supply of HNT and are around to 3x their HNT whereas no subDAO will have been able to earn HNT before the land rush period
Avatar
The fear or people leaving should be considered but it shouldn’t be leading though.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:17 AM
I don’t think it’s a legitimate fear tbh
10:18
I also don’t know if changing this HIP makes it more enticing for new entrants. The current proposal very unscientifically feels like it’ll seem to make becoming a subDAO even less enticing than it already is (edited)
Avatar
If the floor is removed, then I would propose to change the D value to a cube root
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I also don’t know if changing this HIP makes it more enticing for new entrants. The current proposal very unscientifically feels like it’ll seem to make becoming a subDAO even less enticing than it already is (edited)
I think this is an important thing to model, so far all we have been discussing is that MOBILE is too cheap to cough up the onboarding fees and that it creates a problem, but what if the solution to that problem creates an environment in which joining is disincentivized
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:20 AM
Perception is reality. It’s difficult to measure perception in a model.
10:21
The perception of favoritism seems to be the obvious takeaway from a new subDAO that can just make an SPL or go on Polygon or get incubated by IOTEX (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think this is an important thing to model, so far all we have been discussing is that MOBILE is too cheap to cough up the onboarding fees and that it creates a problem, but what if the solution to that problem creates an environment in which joining is disincentivized
this is why I want to run a simulation with some stuff coming down the pipeline and make sure that at least on paper it makes sense for other sub DAOs make sense to join as this is not just a dual pole discussion we are setting up a multipole with transfer orbits
Avatar
I think we're veering into a larger debate about Helium DAO's viability in general. In reality the most successful subDAO is always subsidizing the rest, so if new subDAOs commit, they may need to be locked in somehow. No forking/leaving without severe (potentially legal) consequences
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I think we're veering into a larger debate about Helium DAO's viability in general. In reality the most successful subDAO is always subsidizing the rest, so if new subDAOs commit, they may need to be locked in somehow. No forking/leaving without severe (potentially legal) consequences
Which is in part what onboarding fees did
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I think we're veering into a larger debate about Helium DAO's viability in general. In reality the most successful subDAO is always subsidizing the rest, so if new subDAOs commit, they may need to be locked in somehow. No forking/leaving without severe (potentially legal) consequences
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:23 AM
I brought this up to Tushar about a year ago. His thought was the burn that happens while subDAOs are here is enough. That is why I’m pushing ton incentive onboard fees
Avatar
Right, the question is whether onboarding fees make sense once a zero interest rate environment is gone
Avatar
I keep seeing the sentiment that 'nobody has agreed to pay the onboarding fees for mobile hotspots". Yet I have never seen anyone suggest that 'gateway owners should pay' and have definitely not seen any uproar about that suggestion. If the Foundation won't pay them and the manufacturers won't contribute to them, then there is only one party that has zero defense against paying; gateway owners. At $5, there are only about 35 wallets that have any grounds to really complain about the total amount (that's # of wallets with more than 50 radios at a worst case scenario of one gateway per radio). [yes I know people can have more than one wallet; that's on them.]
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:24 AM
10% premium to turn an off the piece of hardware into a crypto miner seems fair
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I keep seeing the sentiment that 'nobody has agreed to pay the onboarding fees for mobile hotspots". Yet I have never seen anyone suggest that 'gateway owners should pay' and have definitely not seen any uproar about that suggestion. If the Foundation won't pay them and the manufacturers won't contribute to them, then there is only one party that has zero defense against paying; gateway owners. At $5, there are only about 35 wallets that have any grounds to really complain about the total amount (that's # of wallets with more than 50 radios at a worst case scenario of one gateway per radio). [yes I know people can have more than one wallet; that's on them.]
This is a severe UX issue--I would argue that in no scenario should gateway owners be made to pay. I'd rather just forgive the debt
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:24 AM
Did the MOC approve Baicells and Moso?
10:25
Like it’s a simple conversation. Your approval hinged on your burning this HNT. If you don’t, you are no longer able to sell radios to the mobile subDAO (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I think we're veering into a larger debate about Helium DAO's viability in general. In reality the most successful subDAO is always subsidizing the rest, so if new subDAOs commit, they may need to be locked in somehow. No forking/leaving without severe (potentially legal) consequences
right this is why I like the bonding idea, bond something like 3x daily emissions that gives foundation weeks to find problems and lock it for 6 months if you try to leave pretty simple but that needs to be paired with this...
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
This is a severe UX issue--I would argue that in no scenario should gateway owners be made to pay. I'd rather just forgive the debt
You count as one that is very much against the idea. I see zero issue with it. Has anyone really asked the manufacturers? [I am referring to Max's post to "make them pay" some. I wouldn't disagree with such hard negotiations]
Avatar
Max - Just Max 03/31/2023 10:28 AM
I was told by people at the foundation to get a number from the mobile community, have it make sense, and get something passed and it’ll get taken care of. Then people with no knowledge of the situation started arguing against it and huge sweeping changes started getting proposed
10:29
The POC working group was tasked by Valerie to figure out that number but those conversations went nowhere
Avatar
feel free to join voice-chat-governance to discuss this hip 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That actually says active in a day though. It says rewarded in an epoch, which is a day. (edited)
In my understanding it says: the devices that are defined by the subDAOs definition are the ones that get rewards during the epoch. But a subDAO could define an active device e.g. as one that has had some (in whatever way defined) lifesign at least once during the last 7 days. No need that the lifesign has to be there during the epoch of rewards payout. (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 03/31/2023 1:14 PM
I think many people agree with adding square root to V score. can we just have that as a stand alone HIP and push a vote on it ?
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 03/31/2023 4:24 PM
I'd like to propose a change related to naming. Since the Helium 'subDAOs' aren't truly DAOs, I feel it makes more sense to refer to them as 'Networks'. (e.g. 'IOT Network', 'Network Utility Score') This has the benefit of clearly distinguishing the intent of these entities (wireless networks!) and making the language more approachable to a non-crypto audience. Thoughts on this? I'll fire off a PR but just wanted to flag it here first.
👍 6
💯 2
Avatar
Well that kills my electric car charging subDAO HIP!
18:37
Unless I can figure out how to charge the car wirelessly.
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 03/31/2023 7:21 PM
I think it can still be a “charging network”.
🙂 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Except that you will have relatively lazy stake that can’t move unless it accepts losing 3x
Just confirming. You can redelegate 100% of a stake to any subDAO - you just lose delegation rewards the Epoch you do the change. If you want to change so you split your position accross 2 subDAOs say 70%/30% - then the veHNT you transfer to the 2nd position loses the landrush multipier.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Just confirming. You can redelegate 100% of a stake to any subDAO - you just lose delegation rewards the Epoch you do the change. If you want to change so you split your position accross 2 subDAOs say 70%/30% - then the veHNT you transfer to the 2nd position loses the landrush multipier.
Thanks for the clarification 🙂 although I then don’t understand the argument ferebee was making, good to have it cleared up.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Thanks for the clarification 🙂 although I then don’t understand the argument ferebee was making, good to have it cleared up.
I understand his argument, but I think he overestimates the effect. Yes, changes in the Network utility score may affect how much HNT people will lock-up for how long. But I believe the impact will be negligible: Unaffected by changes in Network Utility Scores (NUS): 1. Voting power in the Helium DAO via the amount of veHNT people command. 2. Total amount of HNT that goes to the networks, it will just be distributed differently between networks. 3. Total amounts of MOBILE and IOT that will be rewarded to veHNT delegators. Indirectly / Potentially affected: 4. Relative amounts of MOBILE / IOT tokens rewarded to veHNT delegators that command specific shares of total veHNT delegated, as a consequence of potential changes in total and relative amounts of veHNT delegated to the different networks. Finally: If people think from a perspective of delegation rewards value perspective, they can simply adjust to changes in NUS by changing how much veHNT they delegate to what network. Not much reason to change amounts of HNT locked-up or the durations of the lock-ups based on changes in the NUS. (edited)
Avatar
And aside of that: People who want to lock-up HNT early on can't reliably predict the amounts of influence and token rewards their veHNT delegations will yield anyway. As it is very unclear how much HNT will be locked up for what lock-up durations (and to which networks the veHNT will be delegated).
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
And aside of that: People who want to lock-up HNT early on can't reliably predict the amounts of influence and token rewards their veHNT delegations will yield anyway. As it is very unclear how much HNT will be locked up for what lock-up durations (and to which networks the veHNT will be delegated).
Unclear means to me that what we know could be clearer. To me its definitely an "unknown". Those with deployments of current/new IOT hotspots that want to recover/retain income will probably choose to delegate to IOT Those with deployments of current/new MOBILE hotspots that want to recover/retain income will probably choose to delegate to MOBILE Those with lots of HNT already probably want to wait till the feedback loop settles before moving to long term delegation. (edited)
👍 1
🤷‍♂️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
And aside of that: People who want to lock-up HNT early on can't reliably predict the amounts of influence and token rewards their veHNT delegations will yield anyway. As it is very unclear how much HNT will be locked up for what lock-up durations (and to which networks the veHNT will be delegated).
from how @n_ said the way it works is this: in the wallet you will be able to convert HNT->VeHNT for an amount of time, then you can delegate that to either IOT or MOBILE but you can also switch at anytime but you lose that days rewards for doing that. and you can split your delegations up basically any way you want... not sure if that's all right but I would love to see a demo or test net version so I know what to do come judgement day 😉
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
from how @n_ said the way it works is this: in the wallet you will be able to convert HNT->VeHNT for an amount of time, then you can delegate that to either IOT or MOBILE but you can also switch at anytime but you lose that days rewards for doing that. and you can split your delegations up basically any way you want... not sure if that's all right but I would love to see a demo or test net version so I know what to do come judgement day 😉
My latest understanding was: "delegations" which refer to veHNT-stakes cannot be split, it's either delegating the entire stake or none. But the underlying HNT-lockup position can be split, if the (remaining) lockup-time of the transferred-out position is shorter than that of the transferred-to lockup-position. Not sure if it is possible to create an entirely new HNT lockup position by transferring out from an existing one - or if transfers are only possible between existing lockup-positions. But maybe I'm not up to date anymore, quite hard to keep track of all strings of developments. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
danggo
My latest understanding was: "delegations" which refer to veHNT-stakes cannot be split, it's either delegating the entire stake or none. But the underlying HNT-lockup position can be split, if the (remaining) lockup-time of the transferred-out position is shorter than that of the transferred-to lockup-position. Not sure if it is possible to create an entirely new HNT lockup position by transferring out from an existing one - or if transfers are only possible between existing lockup-positions. But maybe I'm not up to date anymore, quite hard to keep track of all strings of developments. (edited)
https://youtu.be/aLKuLXkoUIo?t=1307 I ask the question around the 21:30 mark and he talks about it
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
https://youtu.be/aLKuLXkoUIo?t=1307 I ask the question around the 21:30 mark and he talks about it
Thanks for the link, I missed that one. I think you were talking about "switching" veHNT-stakes between subDAOs or "Networks". So, yeah that's possible ofc. You can un-delegate and re-delegate veHNT-stakes from/to subDAOs. But you cannot split a stake into two stakes for example. That's only possible on the HNT lockup-position level. And please anybody correct me, if I'm wrong. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
I'd like to propose a change related to naming. Since the Helium 'subDAOs' aren't truly DAOs, I feel it makes more sense to refer to them as 'Networks'. (e.g. 'IOT Network', 'Network Utility Score') This has the benefit of clearly distinguishing the intent of these entities (wireless networks!) and making the language more approachable to a non-crypto audience. Thoughts on this? I'll fire off a PR but just wanted to flag it here first.
Oh boy, if that's not an April's Fools I have to replace "subDAO" with "Networks" in the five german FAQs for Sol/DAO/IOT/veHNT I've written and was about to deploy. So, can you please confirm that this is not an April's Fools before I go about on a "search&rename" of every subDAO word. 🙂
😄 1
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/01/2023 9:20 AM
Not an April fools! Fwiw I posted it PST so still March 31 here. You don’t need to go hunt down all those instances yet - just a proposal to the authors of this HIP. However, I’ve been trying to provide that guidance on docs.helium.com already. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
Not an April fools! Fwiw I posted it PST so still March 31 here. You don’t need to go hunt down all those instances yet - just a proposal to the authors of this HIP. However, I’ve been trying to provide that guidance on docs.helium.com already. (edited)
Ok, thanks. I'll hold off until then. IMO "Network" makes a lot of sense, though "subDAO" sounds fancier. 😉
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
Not an April fools! Fwiw I posted it PST so still March 31 here. You don’t need to go hunt down all those instances yet - just a proposal to the authors of this HIP. However, I’ve been trying to provide that guidance on docs.helium.com already. (edited)
Do you suggest to abandon the term subDAO completely? Or are you thinking along the lines of "the MOBILE subDAO decided on a new improval for the Helium MOBILE Network"? Asking bc. they do have their own governance still. That's not to say they must be called subDAOs because of this, would just like to understand your suggestion better.
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/01/2023 10:10 AM
I'm suggesting abandoning the term completely. In this case I'd rewrite your example as, "The community decided on a new improvement for the Helium MOBILE Network"
👍 1
Avatar
Instead of DNT, Sub network tokens? (edited)
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/01/2023 10:11 AM
and perhaps splitting hairs but I've been playing around with "Helium Mobile Network" and "MOBILE Token" (noting distinction of CAPS for network and token discussion) (edited)
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Instead of DNT, Sub network tokens? (edited)
Joey 0x00003C 04/01/2023 10:14 AM
I've been explicitly writing them out as "network tokens" or "protocol token" https://github.com/helium/docs/pull/1191/files (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
and perhaps splitting hairs but I've been playing around with "Helium Mobile Network" and "MOBILE Token" (noting distinction of CAPS for network and token discussion) (edited)
CAPS are important, as it appears to be standard procedure in crypto to write token symbols that way. I just wish we had something that wasn't such a mouthful handful to write, especially on smartphones. Would love a shorter symbol. "Mobile token", abbreviated MOB? 🙃 (I know, there won't be one) (edited)
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
I'm suggesting abandoning the term completely. In this case I'd rewrite your example as, "The community decided on a new improvement for the Helium MOBILE Network"
Do we need to make sure that we mean the Helium Mobile Network community and not the Helium community? Is there potential for confusion? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Do we need to make sure that we mean the Helium Mobile Network community and not the Helium community? Is there potential for confusion? (edited)
Joey 0x00003C 04/01/2023 10:32 AM
I like to think of it as all one Helium/HNT community, just different form of Hotspot rewards.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
I like to think of it as all one Helium/HNT community, just different form of Hotspot rewards.
Enter Max.
coolcry 2
😂 1
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/01/2023 10:36 AM
I should note I'm not proposing any change to the 'vote escrow' terminology. (veIOT, etc). I think they help draw a specific distinction for network-specific governance. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
danggo
My latest understanding was: "delegations" which refer to veHNT-stakes cannot be split, it's either delegating the entire stake or none. But the underlying HNT-lockup position can be split, if the (remaining) lockup-time of the transferred-out position is shorter than that of the transferred-to lockup-position. Not sure if it is possible to create an entirely new HNT lockup position by transferring out from an existing one - or if transfers are only possible between existing lockup-positions. But maybe I'm not up to date anymore, quite hard to keep track of all strings of developments. (edited)
& @gateholder You can have many positions of veHNT You can split positions - basically transfering some out of one position into a new OR existing position. You can only delegate 100% of a position. If you want to split a currently delegated position across two subDAOs/Networks. 1. Undelegate 2. Transfer some out of a position to another 3. Delegate both positions to the different subDAOs/Networks
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
& @gateholder You can have many positions of veHNT You can split positions - basically transfering some out of one position into a new OR existing position. You can only delegate 100% of a position. If you want to split a currently delegated position across two subDAOs/Networks. 1. Undelegate 2. Transfer some out of a position to another 3. Delegate both positions to the different subDAOs/Networks
I had thought a "split" aka transfer in/out would only be possible on HNT lockups. So, just to clarify: You can split an existing veHNT-Stake into multiple veHNT-stakes independently from the underlying HNT-lockup position? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
danggo
I had thought a "split" aka transfer in/out would only be possible on HNT lockups. So, just to clarify: You can split an existing veHNT-Stake into multiple veHNT-stakes independently from the underlying HNT-lockup position? (edited)
Staking as a word is now out of fashion. As it means different things to different people. You can lock-up HNT into a veHNT position. You can "split" positions You can delegate 100% of a veHNT position to a subDAO.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Staking as a word is now out of fashion. As it means different things to different people. You can lock-up HNT into a veHNT position. You can "split" positions You can delegate 100% of a veHNT position to a subDAO.
Ok, so you can "split" a veHNT position by un-delegating that position and then directly split it into two veHNT positions without having to change anything in the underlying HNT-lockup (splitting underlying HNT-lockup into two as well)? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
danggo
Ok, so you can "split" a veHNT position by un-delegating that position and then directly split it into two veHNT positions without having to change anything in the underlying HNT-lockup (splitting underlying HNT-lockup into two as well)? (edited)
Thats the same thing you are talking about. The veHNT position IS the underlying HNT-lockup.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Thats the same thing you are talking about. The veHNT position IS the underlying HNT-lockup.
I think I know where I made the wrong turn. Since a veHNT position can only be delegated fully or none I assumed they were a "undividable" block and since HNT lockups can be transferred in/out (under certain circumstances), I concluded wrongly the "undividable block" veHNT position can only change when its HNT lockup does. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
✅ 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
& @gateholder You can have many positions of veHNT You can split positions - basically transfering some out of one position into a new OR existing position. You can only delegate 100% of a position. If you want to split a currently delegated position across two subDAOs/Networks. 1. Undelegate 2. Transfer some out of a position to another 3. Delegate both positions to the different subDAOs/Networks
Good morning! 🙂 A follow-up question: Will the "splitting" of a veHNT position consume a reward epoch? So missing out on 2 reward epochs for un-delegate + split before re-delegating? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
danggo
Good morning! 🙂 A follow-up question: Will the "splitting" of a veHNT position consume a reward epoch? So missing out on 2 reward epochs for un-delegate + split before re-delegating? (edited)
Maybe we should start moving this to some veGovernance related channel, #hip-51-helium-dao , e.g.? . We've been off-topic for quite a bit. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Wen vote HIP80?
🤷‍♀️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
I'd like to propose a change related to naming. Since the Helium 'subDAOs' aren't truly DAOs, I feel it makes more sense to refer to them as 'Networks'. (e.g. 'IOT Network', 'Network Utility Score') This has the benefit of clearly distinguishing the intent of these entities (wireless networks!) and making the language more approachable to a non-crypto audience. Thoughts on this? I'll fire off a PR but just wanted to flag it here first.
I’m not strongly opposed to this, but I don’t support it. If that does become part of HIP-80, I think the name change needs to be stated as a separate section, and it should be called out in each section where the Score is referenced, to avoid confuion. I also think we should ask for input from @gutentag, Helium Chief Terminology Officer.
👀 1
Avatar
. Fundamentally, I disagree with the premise. Why do you believe that Helium subDAOs aren’t truly DAOs? HIP-51 states that subDAOs will be governed by veDNT governance, and specifies: All subDAOs have full control over DNT issuance parameters including overall emission schedules, inflation rates, bonus carve-outs, and stakeholder distributions (Hotspots, oracles, etc.). The only exception to this is the fixed cap of 6% DNT rewards going to veHNT stakers. The reason to keep this fixed is to avoid a scenario where DNPs compete to give more rewards to veHNT stakers at the expense of Hotspot hosts. We had a lively discussion here leading up to HIP-76 on how this should be interpreted, and to what extent the rules specified and clarified in HIP-76 relating to HNT lockup to veHNT would apply to subDAO governance through DNT lockup and veDNT. In the end, we reached a consensus that while it was appropriate for HIP-76 to modify and/or clarify initial parameters of veDNT lockup mechanics as previously set by other HIPs, subDAOs should have the authority to modify these parameters going forward. More generally, subDAOs should have the authority to control the tokenomics of their DNT, as quoted above from HIP-51. In my view, this is a good reason to call them subDAOs, as they have full authority over their subDAO token (DNT), even though they depend on the Helium DAO where the issuance of HNT to the subDAO treasury is concerned. For example, if the Helium DAO finds that a subDAO is gaming its Utility Score, the Helium DAO may slash the HNT reserves of the subDAO. However, the Helium DAO has no authority over the subDAO’s DNT.
👍 1
16:47
If you find “DAO Utility Score” inappropriate because they are “only” subDAOs, what if we call it “subDAO Utility Score” instead? I’d like that. I did always wonder why it wasn’t called that to begin with. Maybe somebody has an origin story.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/02/2023 9:20 PM
I think the names of the subDAOs is a ridiculous tangent to go down right now.
👍 2
Avatar
Can we please stop adding random crap to unrelated HIPs? Streamlining the HIP process requires single issue HIPs that are simple yes-no questions. By slapping on random things onto HIPs all you get endless debate about subsets of the HIP.
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/02/2023 9:24 PM
I think we need a HIP limiting the number of yes/no questions and variables in HIPs
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
. Fundamentally, I disagree with the premise. Why do you believe that Helium subDAOs aren’t truly DAOs? HIP-51 states that subDAOs will be governed by veDNT governance, and specifies: All subDAOs have full control over DNT issuance parameters including overall emission schedules, inflation rates, bonus carve-outs, and stakeholder distributions (Hotspots, oracles, etc.). The only exception to this is the fixed cap of 6% DNT rewards going to veHNT stakers. The reason to keep this fixed is to avoid a scenario where DNPs compete to give more rewards to veHNT stakers at the expense of Hotspot hosts. We had a lively discussion here leading up to HIP-76 on how this should be interpreted, and to what extent the rules specified and clarified in HIP-76 relating to HNT lockup to veHNT would apply to subDAO governance through DNT lockup and veDNT. In the end, we reached a consensus that while it was appropriate for HIP-76 to modify and/or clarify initial parameters of veDNT lockup mechanics as previously set by other HIPs, subDAOs should have the authority to modify these parameters going forward. More generally, subDAOs should have the authority to control the tokenomics of their DNT, as quoted above from HIP-51. In my view, this is a good reason to call them subDAOs, as they have full authority over their subDAO token (DNT), even though they depend on the Helium DAO where the issuance of HNT to the subDAO treasury is concerned. For example, if the Helium DAO finds that a subDAO is gaming its Utility Score, the Helium DAO may slash the HNT reserves of the subDAO. However, the Helium DAO has no authority over the subDAO’s DNT.
I'd have some nuance to add, but I can agree with not discussing this further as part of this HIP (and maybe as a separate single-issue HIP instead). (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think the names of the subDAOs is a ridiculous tangent to go down right now.
Mad respect to Joey here for submitting an actual PR which can be specifically discussed, which is why I feel it deserves a thorough response. At the same time, if a name change is the least bit controversial, I do agree with you that this HIP is not the place for it.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Can we please stop adding random crap to unrelated HIPs? Streamlining the HIP process requires single issue HIPs that are simple yes-no questions. By slapping on random things onto HIPs all you get endless debate about subsets of the HIP.
isnt this how most political systems work today? pack in a whole bunch of random stuff into a bigger ticket item? (being generous with "work" in my joke here to be clear.)
09:54
my quick take: " A Helium subDAO provides governance to a specific Helium Network which mints Network Tokens" I'll be syncing up with Joey later today to see where things are at in his mind. But across the board, its probably best to not add this to this particular HIP
09:54
I am in favor of "Network Utility Score" vs "Dao Utility Score" as the utility score is intended to measure the utility of the network, not the utility of the governance
👆 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
isnt this how most political systems work today? pack in a whole bunch of random stuff into a bigger ticket item? (being generous with "work" in my joke here to be clear.)
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:31 AM
That’s not how Helium works.
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That’s not how Helium works.
i meant that more sarcastically in the sense of "see how geopolitics is trash, lets not do that"
👍 1
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/03/2023 10:33 AM
Hey, busy morning but I'll share some more formal response in a sec. tl;dr I welcome you all to move on with the core focus of the HIP! We can talk terminology later - it's inconsequential to the content of this HIP
👍 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:33 AM
Okay cool. Real slippery slope because I’ll start proposing HIPs that are 95% positive for the project with a rider at the end saying the HIP author gets 10,000 HNT if we can start jamming random stuff into HIPs
💰 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Okay cool. Real slippery slope because I’ll start proposing HIPs that are 95% positive for the project with a rider at the end saying the HIP author gets 10,000 HNT if we can start jamming random stuff into HIPs
appologies for the confusion, we really need a sarcasm font or something
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:35 AM
The secure concentrator HIP kinda irked me for unintentionally opening up that Pandora’s box
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/03/2023 10:35 AM
I'd support NOT calling them subdaos. We don't have IIPs and MIPs for starters. I believe this to be a non-consequential addition that most probably wouldn't care about.
10:36
Also reinforces simplicity.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
I'd support NOT calling them subdaos. We don't have IIPs and MIPs for starters. I believe this to be a non-consequential addition that most probably wouldn't care about.
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:36 AM
We would if every time a subDAO related HIP came up the argument wasn’t “how do we vote on it if the subDAOs don’t exist yet”
Avatar
reinforcing simplicity by making a multi-issue HIP, that doesn't track
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/03/2023 10:40 AM
We did just fine on governance before the DAO terminology was introduced. Ultimately what we call something doesn't change the mechanics of it. We need to recognize where terminology is getting in the way of understanding. Simplifying the language makes the network more accessible and actionable to the average user. (not necessarily the audience in this channel)
💯 1
Avatar
agreed, while I don't think this change is consequential, the community is voicing its views! lets move this portion of the discussion to #hip-discussion . There is deep value in simplifying things as much as possible for the crypto fledglings and helium veterans alike
10:40
yea what Joey said ☝
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:40 AM
What are we trying to solve with this HIP? The V score or the Mobile onboard issue? I think we can make the v score more blunt and pass that relatively quickly then move on to tackling the other pieces
👍 1
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/03/2023 10:41 AM
I'll close out my PR since it seems to be confusing the content here. We can solve this in docs/comms.
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
I'll close out my PR since it seems to be confusing the content here. We can solve this in docs/comms.
Can you really unilaterally decide they're suddenly not subDAOs though?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:41 AM
Technically Helium DAO is not a DAO FWIW. (edited)
Avatar
lets move to #hip-discussion to not muddy the water here (edited)
🫡 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What are we trying to solve with this HIP? The V score or the Mobile onboard issue? I think we can make the v score more blunt and pass that relatively quickly then move on to tackling the other pieces
Tend to agree. Are you ok with adding the square root to the V factor? Temp vote looked like there is no disagreement. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 11:35 AM
I think it’s fine, have no real argument against it other than if we just wait a few weeks we can make a much more informed decision about how much veHNT there actually is (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
The square root just handles a potential issue down the line, given the winner take all nature of a linear factor in the equation.
👍 1
Avatar
So, if no one else has objections, adding the square root to the V factor for a specific subDAO (V=max{1, sqrt(veHNT)}) is agreed upon and we can move forward with the discussion? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
The square root just handles a potential issue down the line, given the winner take all nature of a linear factor in the equation.
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 12:39 PM
Is it necessary if we all expect DNT price to decouple from HNT treasury backing on day 1? Would think in that scenario the market will balance out since we called delegation rewards at 6% across all subDAOs
12:40
That piece comes down to what do we as a community want to determine how valuable a network is? Is it current data transfer and current network size or is it speculative future value?
Avatar
We’ve had lots of discussion here, and after reading all the upscroll, I’m confused. I’d like to figure out where we stand. HIP-80 is an attempt, as the title says, to simplify the DAO Utility Score. Please take a look at the following, and if you think something needs to be changed, try to explain what, and how, and why. There are several motivations for the proposed changes in HIP-80: . (edited)
15:31
1. Simplify The Utility Score as defined in HIP-51 is difficult to understand and model. Simplicity is a goal in its own right. 2. Enable MOBILE earnings in the short term Due to the missing onboarding fees for MOBILE, the HIP-51 Score would be lower than intended at launch. Initially, MOBILE should earn more. 3. Protect IOT earnings in the medium term LoRa will need years to mature. When HIP-51 was proposed, it was suggested that LoRa should have a “founder’s bonus” and be given time for new applications to develop, before it would be required to compete with 5G on revenue dollar for dollar. Note we still all hope MOBILE will far exceed IOT. It just shouldn’t starve IOT completely, so IOT can also profit from the new value MOBILE brings to Helium. 4. Balance the influence of network performance with veHNT delegation The Score of HIP-51 could give a single large position of delegated HNT more influence than the DC burn of an entire network. Both are important, and their influence should be balanced. 5. Lower onboarding fees Since the proposed Score no longer values subDAOs based on the onboarding fees they pay, HIP-80 proposes to lower fees, to make it easier for networks to grow with low-cost Hotspots. (edited)
15:31
. These are the goals of HIP-80. It’s reasonable to have different opinions about these goals. If you disagree with one of these motivations, I’d love to hear exactly how and why. Then, HIP-80 proposes ways of achieving these goals. .
15:31
A. Simplify The proposed Score formula is simpler. B. Ignore onboarding fees The size of the network would not matter. That was just a way for HIP-51 to give a built-in advantage to LoRa to achieve goal 3., and the Score proposed in HIP-80 has a different and simpler way to do that. In the end, we don’t need “big” networks, we need networks that can transmit lots of data. By ignoring onboarding fees, we avoid the problem with the unpaid MOBILE onboards. C. Lend IOT a hand The new Score proposes to treat IOT as if it were already burning $75,000/month, while in fact it’s still developing and building new applications. This helping hand goes away in 2027. After that, IOT will have to fend for itself. MOBILE should be able to far surpass that much sooner. Maybe $75,000 is too much or too little? We can adjust the number. What would be a better number? D. Downweight veHNT The new Score takes the square root of veHNT, so that a single whale can’t just make one network dominate all others. Maybe veHNT still holds too much power? Or too little? Should we weight it differently? How? E. Set a new, lower minimum onboarding fee Since the new Score doesn’t give benefits to a network for paying high onboarding fees, we can reduce them. HIP-80 proposes a minimum fee of $5. (The published version states a flat fee of $5, but there is already an open pull request that changes it to be a minimum.) A lower fee would make it easier to grow the IOT, the MOBILE, and future networks.
15:31
. So please bring me up to speed what you think. Do you disagree with one of the motivations? Which one? How and why? What would be better instead? Do you disagree with one of the proposed solutions? Which one? How should it be changed? PLEASE! Can you post a model that explains why your suggestion is better?
🚀 1
Avatar
In support of the above ....There will be a HIP 80 Overview & Q+A call sometime this week. HIP 80 is becoming an urgent HIP as we need an answer for Helium Core Devs prior to the Migration. Thanks in advance for your participation and time! Please pay attention in this channel as we work to reach consensus in the Community. https://discordapp.com/channels/404106811252408320/1029745027355787284/1092571787700740147
waveform pinned a message to this channel. 04/03/2023 3:33 PM
Avatar
For those new to the discussion, I posted earlier a draft model of Scores according to HIP-51 and the formula proposed in HIP-80, to give an idea of the relative effects, disregarding veHNT. We can do more models if people have alternative suggestions, bring on the numbers! https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1090679775091228715
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 4:19 PM
The Mobile subDAO will attempt to pass a MIP increasing the veHNT delegation to 12% in response to this HIP so that it can compete with IOT’s added benefit of being first. The Helium DAO can attempt to slash those added rewards if they want but there is no mechanism in place to do that and no process to determine who has the right to slash.
😂 1
16:19
Dangerous game we’re playing here
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
A. Simplify The proposed Score formula is simpler. B. Ignore onboarding fees The size of the network would not matter. That was just a way for HIP-51 to give a built-in advantage to LoRa to achieve goal 3., and the Score proposed in HIP-80 has a different and simpler way to do that. In the end, we don’t need “big” networks, we need networks that can transmit lots of data. By ignoring onboarding fees, we avoid the problem with the unpaid MOBILE onboards. C. Lend IOT a hand The new Score proposes to treat IOT as if it were already burning $75,000/month, while in fact it’s still developing and building new applications. This helping hand goes away in 2027. After that, IOT will have to fend for itself. MOBILE should be able to far surpass that much sooner. Maybe $75,000 is too much or too little? We can adjust the number. What would be a better number? D. Downweight veHNT The new Score takes the square root of veHNT, so that a single whale can’t just make one network dominate all others. Maybe veHNT still holds too much power? Or too little? Should we weight it differently? How? E. Set a new, lower minimum onboarding fee Since the new Score doesn’t give benefits to a network for paying high onboarding fees, we can reduce them. HIP-80 proposes a minimum fee of $5. (The published version states a flat fee of $5, but there is already an open pull request that changes it to be a minimum.) A lower fee would make it easier to grow the IOT, the MOBILE, and future networks.
Philosophically, I am 100% on board with protecting IoT for multiple reasons. However, I keep rethinking and asking myself, is 50 the right number for the floor of IoT’s D score? The proposed IoT floor was arbitrarily set at 50 to yield a net credit of $75,000/month in Data Credit spend. How realistic is it that the IoT subnetwork will reach that? Outside of conjecture and insider knowledge from the 1663 IoT solutions group, do we really have a firm grip on its projected ability to move this much data inside of 4 years? How do we know that this floor doesn’t overly protect the IoT subnetwork at the expense of the Mobile subnetwork? How many Mobile subscribers will it take to match IoT’s $75,000/month in DC spend? And if I sign up for a Mobile plan, how much of my monthly bill is allocated towards DC spend? Does this move poison WI-FI Dabba’s stated intention to be a subnetwork within the Helium ecosystem? If we can answer these questions, perhaps we can better rationalize that this floor will not overly protect IoT at the risk of tying the hands of the subnetwork that, in the short term, will be responsible for keeping the whole ecosystem from crumbling. Or at the risk of dissuading another subnetwork from joining when previously they thought it might be feasible? Why not set the IoT’s D floor at 35? I contend that it still accomplishes its goal, while at the same time not hampering the flywheel of Mobil’s development. It’s only a 30% reduction from that which was proposed. If your answer is “No, it should stay at 50.” Is there a cogent argument as to why the floor should remain at 50 for IoT’s D utility variable? Tagging @rawrmaan and @JMF. Truly looking for non contentious discourse:). Great job again on the HIP write up:) (edited)
Avatar
Have seen this a few times, it’s all HIPs. No MIPs. No IIPs.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The Mobile subDAO will attempt to pass a MIP increasing the veHNT delegation to 12% in response to this HIP so that it can compete with IOT’s added benefit of being first. The Helium DAO can attempt to slash those added rewards if they want but there is no mechanism in place to do that and no process to determine who has the right to slash.
Except its not allowed to be played if you read HIP-51 " veHNT stakers towards a DNP are rewarded up to a fixed cap of 6% DNT emissions every epoch. This is fixed across DNPs and cannot be changed by the DNP. The reason to keep this fixed is to avoid a scenario where DNPs compete to give more rewards to veHNT stakers at the expense of Hotspot hosts."
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Have seen this a few times, it’s all HIPs. No MIPs. No IIPs.
If governance is truly separate, a subNetwork can name it whatever they want, right? IMO, there should be a description change once the subNetworks are fully functioning. I mean if I vote at the L1 level, I vote with veHNT. If I vote at the L2 level, I’ll vote with the respective ve-sub token, right? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Except its not allowed to be played if you read HIP-51 " veHNT stakers towards a DNP are rewarded up to a fixed cap of 6% DNT emissions every epoch. This is fixed across DNPs and cannot be changed by the DNP. The reason to keep this fixed is to avoid a scenario where DNPs compete to give more rewards to veHNT stakers at the expense of Hotspot hosts."
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:21 PM
The penalty is slashing which doesn’t exist
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The penalty is slashing which doesn’t exist
Or not approving the HIP to goto vote. One is simpler than the other. And yet again we are going off topic.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Philosophically, I am 100% on board with protecting IoT for multiple reasons. However, I keep rethinking and asking myself, is 50 the right number for the floor of IoT’s D score? The proposed IoT floor was arbitrarily set at 50 to yield a net credit of $75,000/month in Data Credit spend. How realistic is it that the IoT subnetwork will reach that? Outside of conjecture and insider knowledge from the 1663 IoT solutions group, do we really have a firm grip on its projected ability to move this much data inside of 4 years? How do we know that this floor doesn’t overly protect the IoT subnetwork at the expense of the Mobile subnetwork? How many Mobile subscribers will it take to match IoT’s $75,000/month in DC spend? And if I sign up for a Mobile plan, how much of my monthly bill is allocated towards DC spend? Does this move poison WI-FI Dabba’s stated intention to be a subnetwork within the Helium ecosystem? If we can answer these questions, perhaps we can better rationalize that this floor will not overly protect IoT at the risk of tying the hands of the subnetwork that, in the short term, will be responsible for keeping the whole ecosystem from crumbling. Or at the risk of dissuading another subnetwork from joining when previously they thought it might be feasible? Why not set the IoT’s D floor at 35? I contend that it still accomplishes its goal, while at the same time not hampering the flywheel of Mobil’s development. It’s only a 30% reduction from that which was proposed. If your answer is “No, it should stay at 50.” Is there a cogent argument as to why the floor should remain at 50 for IoT’s D utility variable? Tagging @rawrmaan and @JMF. Truly looking for non contentious discourse:). Great job again on the HIP write up:) (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:23 PM
Yea I mean this kinda my main thesis here. We’re just throwing arbitrary numbers out there that feel right as opposed to merit based protections.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Or not approving the HIP to goto vote. One is simpler than the other. And yet again we are going off topic.
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:24 PM
Helium DAO doesn’t control governance decisions of subDAOs. Who would not approve it go to vote in that scenario?
18:26
I don’t see how projecting what another subDAO may do in response to the favorable treatment of another subDAO in this HIP is “off topic”
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea I mean this kinda my main thesis here. We’re just throwing arbitrary numbers out there that feel right as opposed to merit based protections.
There is no way for us to really know, right? I don’t expect Ferebee or the other authors to be able to answer my questions for more than one reason. Max, what floor do you propose is reasonable for the IoT D variable?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:30 PM
The whole concept of an arbitrary floor is a flawed concept that shouldn’t replace the current merit based “floor” (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The whole concept of an arbitrary floor is a flawed concept that shouldn’t replace the current merit based “floor” (edited)
I disagree with this statement. Truly in a respectful way :). But we can agree to disagree 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:36 PM
At no point in Helium’s history have we just said fuck it, here’s an arbitrary number we came up with over the weekend, let’s rush tk pass this now
18:38
The other thing about the floor number is no one actually thinks that particular number is good
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
At no point in Helium’s history have we just said fuck it, here’s an arbitrary number we came up with over the weekend, let’s rush tk pass this now
If I understand your position, there is no floor aside from the number 1 that you would accept. Is this correct? Philosophically, you are opposed to protecting the IoT network. You would allow it to die before it had a chance to do what it was intended? (edited)
18:41
Am I understanding correctly?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
If I understand your position, there is no floor aside from the number 1 that you would accept. Is this correct? Philosophically, you are opposed to protecting the IoT network. You would allow it to die before it had a chance to do what it was intended? (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:41 PM
You are not
Avatar
Which part am I missing?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:42 PM
The IOT can get it’s protection based on the DC burned onboarding devices.
18:43
The problem: Mobile didn’t onboard radios. The Solution: completely change the DAO Utility score to get rid of that factor?
18:44
Then put every future potential subDAO at a huge disadvantage that it has no way of overcoming thereby killing any upside Helium DAO has
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The IOT can get it’s protection based on the DC burned onboarding devices.
Ok. I’m truly not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to make sure I see your point of view clearly. I may not agree with it, but I owe it to myself to try to see from your lens:)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
If governance is truly separate, a subNetwork can name it whatever they want, right? IMO, there should be a description change once the subNetworks are fully functioning. I mean if I vote at the L1 level, I vote with veHNT. If I vote at the L2 level, I’ll vote with the respective ve-sub token, right? (edited)
New contender has entered the chat! subDAO vs Network vs subNetwork (I kid but it’s topical for todays earlier discussion)
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
New contender has entered the chat! subDAO vs Network vs subNetwork (I kid but it’s topical for todays earlier discussion)
I prefer subNetwork. It makes it easier to explain to others. But I can roll with whatever terminology is most desired 🙂
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Ok. I’m truly not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to make sure I see your point of view clearly. I may not agree with it, but I owe it to myself to try to see from your lens:)
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:47 PM
I’m looking at this from the Helium DAO perspective and the perspective of a new potential subDAO. Why do I want to pay royalties to HST holders AND a whole other network when I can just make my own token and use my own money (edited)
18:47
I think we over estimate the weight the Helium name has in the industry
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m looking at this from the Helium DAO perspective and the perspective of a new potential subDAO. Why do I want to pay royalties to HST holders AND a whole other network when I can just make my own token and use my own money (edited)
It’s in exchange for joining the Helium Network right? No free lunch (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
It’s in exchange for joining the Helium Network right? No free lunch (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:49 PM
IOTEX will pay me (a potential network) to join and incubate me. Similar market caps between the two. Why would I pay a ton to Helium when I can get paid elsewhere?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m looking at this from the Helium DAO perspective and the perspective of a new potential subDAO. Why do I want to pay royalties to HST holders AND a whole other network when I can just make my own token and use my own money (edited)
If this move causes WI-Fi Dabba to go another way, I can see your point more clearly. But if we are just talking about projects that are under funded with no real likelihood of success, then I care not what they say.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
IOTEX will pay me (a potential network) to join and incubate me. Similar market caps between the two. Why would I pay a ton to Helium when I can get paid elsewhere?
Want to take this to #hip-discussion getting a bit off topic from the initiative here
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Want to take this to #hip-discussion getting a bit off topic from the initiative here
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:50 PM
No. This is effect this HIP will have.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
If this move causes WI-Fi Dabba to go another way, I can see your point more clearly. But if we are just talking about projects that are under funded with no real likelihood of success, then I care not what they say.
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:51 PM
WiFi Dabba which arguably sells unregistered securities in India is your barometer for a good project? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
IOTEX will pay me (a potential network) to join and incubate me. Similar market caps between the two. Why would I pay a ton to Helium when I can get paid elsewhere?
But that’s an N of 1. The helium Ecosystem will not be right for every project. BTW, congrats on your funding with IOTEX. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
WiFi Dabba which arguably sells unregistered securities in India is your barometer for a good project? (edited)
I really don’t know that much about WiFI Dabba other than they plan to sell the use of their network with Rupees=> HNT => Data Credits. The more HNT that gets burned, the more bullish it sounds to me :). India can regulate their businesses as they see fit. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 6:54 PM
DIMO chose to go with IOTEX, for examples. Others that aren’t public announced are doing the same (edited)
18:55
Like the network of networks idea was cool but we’re too concerned with protecting IOT while a competitor emerged doing exactly what we wanted to do but executing better (edited)
19:00
I think we need to increase the incentives for new subDAOs to want to join the Helium network. This proposal is counter to that idea. That is why I am against the idea of an arbitrary floor for one subDAO.
Avatar
Dimo is also on polygon right?
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think we need to increase the incentives for new subDAOs to want to join the Helium network. This proposal is counter to that idea. That is why I am against the idea of an arbitrary floor for one subDAO.
I think you’ve well explained what you are against, can we see that same energy towards what you are for?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I think you’ve well explained what you are against, can we see that same energy towards what you are for?
As long as its unrelated to onboarding fees for radios
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Dimo is also on polygon right?
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:27 PM
Yes
Avatar
Moving chains is hard, makes some sense they’d go that way at least. Big fan of DIMO
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I think you’ve well explained what you are against, can we see that same energy towards what you are for?
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:29 PM
HIP-51 is fine for now. There’s no need to completely overhaul the system because a subDAO didn’t pay. Short term we just need to institute a minimum onboard burn so the Mobile subDAO issue doesn’t happen again.
19:30
The subDAO understands the consequences as laid out in HIP-51 for not burning DC to onboard. It clearly doesn’t care enough to increase its A score at this time so it should face the consequences of that score being a 1
Avatar
Evolve or die I guess. Little cutthroat but I see your point
19:32
The subDAO v subDAO mentality is interesting all the same. Why aren’t we finding solutions for them to compliment each other rather than consistently looking for ways to tear each other down
👆 1
Avatar
well I have been going through some stuff and just trying to get a handle on what I think at least is the best way forward, and one of the main conclusions I am coming too is that what is the point of this hip, is to simplify the VDA score because that is the metric to do it but really this is a division of limited resources by determining the flow of emissions. but what is best for the network? IMO I have done the calculous and come to the conclusion that IOT should subsidize mobile (short term) in return for long term support do we agree on that?
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Evolve or die I guess. Little cutthroat but I see your point
I see his point as well. I just don’t back it 100%.
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
The subDAO v subDAO mentality is interesting all the same. Why aren’t we finding solutions for them to compliment each other rather than consistently looking for ways to tear each other down
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:34 PM
They are competing for the same fixed pie of HNT. Coopetition - all subDAOs compete separately to be the best subDAO increasing the value of the entire network in dollars.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
well I have been going through some stuff and just trying to get a handle on what I think at least is the best way forward, and one of the main conclusions I am coming too is that what is the point of this hip, is to simplify the VDA score because that is the metric to do it but really this is a division of limited resources by determining the flow of emissions. but what is best for the network? IMO I have done the calculous and come to the conclusion that IOT should subsidize mobile (short term) in return for long term support do we agree on that?
What do you mean. Can you clarify this further? “IoT should subsidize Mobile. . .”
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
What do you mean. Can you clarify this further? “IoT should subsidize Mobile. . .”
yes, do you remember that graph that came out a while ago that showed that mobile is like 94% of the earnings potential, I find that to be true and the main reason it is not growing at a good rate right now is that returns are not good enough I have heard this many times, now some of this will resolve it self in time but the growth curve is currently being suppressed, so putting my business hat on IOT people should convert there earnings potential into a bond of mobile so that mobile can keep the network "total" growth at the highest rate...
19:41
which is the best thing for the network as it sits, but I know this will not fly with many IOT specific people but just honestly saying that if you want HNT to grow the most as quickly as possible is should focus the majority of its efforts there, but how do you convince the IOT side to "give up" todays rewards for future growth in earnings
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
which is the best thing for the network as it sits, but I know this will not fly with many IOT specific people but just honestly saying that if you want HNT to grow the most as quickly as possible is should focus the majority of its efforts there, but how do you convince the IOT side to "give up" todays rewards for future growth in earnings
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:42 PM
What if I don’t want HNT to grow, and I want more HNT tokens regardless of their value?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What if I don’t want HNT to grow, and I want more HNT tokens regardless of their value?
little confused about what your saying like your trying scoop the bottom of pricing?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
little confused about what your saying like your trying scoop the bottom of pricing?
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:45 PM
I’m being facetious
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
yes, do you remember that graph that came out a while ago that showed that mobile is like 94% of the earnings potential, I find that to be true and the main reason it is not growing at a good rate right now is that returns are not good enough I have heard this many times, now some of this will resolve it self in time but the growth curve is currently being suppressed, so putting my business hat on IOT people should convert there earnings potential into a bond of mobile so that mobile can keep the network "total" growth at the highest rate...
I see your point. So what do you think? Do you think that the IoT subNetwork’s D calculation should have a floor of 1 instead of 50, or 35?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:50 PM
Don’t forget the V factor gives a 3x multiplier on the 60% of the HNT earned by IOT people and no other HNT will ever be given that opportunity. How many advantages does the IOT subDAO need, especially when we’re seeing IOT people will likely vote in favor of IOT rather than in favor of what’s best for Helium DAO
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m being facetious
lol, but I wonder if you really look at potential growth rates, IOT will not grow quickly but it is still in a weakened state until massive amounts of devices get brought on, mobile can take off now, so I think the best thing to do is literally have IOT bond there earnings in support but make it optional? meaning that lets say we could convince 50% of people to bond for 12months, at the end of those 12 months they get a percentage of the mobile earnings
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
lol, but I wonder if you really look at potential growth rates, IOT will not grow quickly but it is still in a weakened state until massive amounts of devices get brought on, mobile can take off now, so I think the best thing to do is literally have IOT bond there earnings in support but make it optional? meaning that lets say we could convince 50% of people to bond for 12months, at the end of those 12 months they get a percentage of the mobile earnings
Interesting.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
lol, but I wonder if you really look at potential growth rates, IOT will not grow quickly but it is still in a weakened state until massive amounts of devices get brought on, mobile can take off now, so I think the best thing to do is literally have IOT bond there earnings in support but make it optional? meaning that lets say we could convince 50% of people to bond for 12months, at the end of those 12 months they get a percentage of the mobile earnings
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:51 PM
Even if IOT’s treasury fund doesn’t get a single HNT deposited into it, no network will ever earn more HNT than the IOT subDAO has already earned
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Even if IOT’s treasury fund doesn’t get a single HNT deposited into it, no network will ever earn more HNT than the IOT subDAO has already earned
That’s a fact we can all agree with
Avatar
the way I see it there is no way to completely make this fair, and as I have been following this conversation there hasn't been much consensus on what should be done, so the solution is something that has not been presented yet IMO I hope this might be a way of figuring this out (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:54 PM
People bought CBRS hardware because they were told to expect their treasury fund would get funded for 13 months before the next halving. Instead it’ll get 3 and a half months. Why is that the group, that spent significantly more money than any other group in that time getting screwed?
☝️ 2
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
the way I see it there is no way to completely make this fair, and as I have been following this conversation there hasn't been much consensus on what should be done, so the solution is something that has not been presented yet IMO I hope this might be a way of figuring this out (edited)
I like the direction. I’m still on the fence about a 50 floor.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Even if IOT’s treasury fund doesn’t get a single HNT deposited into it, no network will ever earn more HNT than the IOT subDAO has already earned
ok but that is immutable, I am trying to deal with future problems we cant change that unless we increase the Helium supply
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
ok but that is immutable, I am trying to deal with future problems we cant change that unless we increase the Helium supply
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 7:56 PM
The point is there’s no reason to arbitrarily protect that network over others when no network can ever overtake it
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The point is there’s no reason to arbitrarily protect that network over others when no network can ever overtake it
right but the whole point of this arrangement is to mutually benefit, the best way I can think of is having IOT delay there earnings for about 1 year, stake it on mobiles growth making it more profitable and restarting the engine of what made helium the success it was, this gives people the choice, money now or money later, and ties the ecosystems together in a positive way
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
right but the whole point of this arrangement is to mutually benefit, the best way I can think of is having IOT delay there earnings for about 1 year, stake it on mobiles growth making it more profitable and restarting the engine of what made helium the success it was, this gives people the choice, money now or money later, and ties the ecosystems together in a positive way
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:03 PM
That’ll never happen though. The trend is towards figuring out how IOT can extract as much HNT out of the system as possible for being “first” despite like 90% of IOT’s network being built on the speculation of 5G coming later.
Avatar
Have any data to back those values up? We’re trying to be better about that as a community
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I like the direction. I’m still on the fence about a 50 floor.
I would say go with the calculation with no floor, but go 50/50 so if you have 1% of the IOT you would make .5% of the mobile but you couldn't redeem until 12 months? just spitballing this part
👍 1
Avatar
Ah missed the reply, was aimed at max, but really everyone
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Have any data to back those values up? We’re trying to be better about that as a community
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:09 PM
HIP-27 was first introduced in February 2021. Network size was ~ 20,000 hotspots at the time. Then price went up relative to bitcoin with that announcement, the passing of the HIP, the article saying Dish was looking at a model similar to helium being misunderstood to mean Helium Mobile. I then added some cushion 5x-ing the network size at the time to account for preorders with Rak and Nebra (the only options at the time)
Avatar
Looking for a formula which results in 90% is what I meant
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:10 PM
20,000 hotspots times 5 to be conservative
20:10
Divided by 1 million
Avatar
5 what?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:10 PM
The number 5
20:10
There were 20,000 hotspots, I’m assuming 100,000 had been ordered to be generous
Avatar
I might not be conveying my point clearly sorry. We’re trying to get numbers based on data not arbitrary values and assumptions right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:11 PM
Okay then in that case 98% of the IOT network was deployed after the news of 5G CBRS
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There were 20,000 hotspots, I’m assuming 100,000 had been ordered to be generous
ya but where in that time line is when all the youtubers started coming out and say you can make 1000$ a day?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Okay then in that case 98% of the IOT network was deployed after the news of 5G CBRS
Again… can you site a source? Or are you just claiming 98%?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
ya but where in that time line is when all the youtubers started coming out and say you can make 1000$ a day?
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:12 PM
~20,000 hotspots deployed at the time of HIP-27 being introduced. 1 million today
Avatar
network growth was def not driven by 5g news. a small portion though, sure.
💯 1
20:12
id attribute youtuber vids for the vast majority of growth
☝️ 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:13 PM
That would be false. The growth happened the way it did because of the long lead times for hotspots
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
~20,000 hotspots deployed at the time of HIP-27 being introduced. 1 million today
Ok I feel like you’re avoiding my point. No worries.
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
id attribute youtuber vids for the vast majority of growth
😆 1
😂 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:14 PM
I’m not. I’m saying a large percentage of the network was deployed after the 5G news was announced
20:14
I’m using the number of hotspots at the time as a percentage of the number of hotspots today
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m not. I’m saying a large percentage of the network was deployed after the 5G news was announced
Right, but that’s a law of large numbers. The future is going to hold more than the past by definition
Avatar
again though this is in the past I looking for a solution for the future (edited)
💯 1
Avatar
when was that vosk 5200 video
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Right, but that’s a law of large numbers. The future is going to hold more than the past by definition
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:15 PM
Considering how little growth there was in the last 8 months, Both encapsulate about 18 months
Avatar
Can we do a floor change temperature check? As written, HIP-80 proposes to give the IOT subDAO an explicit—but limited—advantage by setting its Floor to 50. The effect of this is to treat the IOT subDAO as if it is earning $75,000/month in data credit burn for a period of 4 years, then it reverts to 1. If you are in favor of reducing the IoT’s Floor from 50 to “some number”, then hit thumbs up. If you think it should stay at 50, hit thumbs down. (edited)
👍 3
👎 1
0️⃣ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
when was that vosk 5200 video
feb 2021
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:15 PM
And I even 5x’d the before time
Avatar
Can you 7x it for me?
20:16
While we are just choosing values
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
feb 2021
not a mention of 5g in that video i believe
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
not a mention of 5g in that video i believe
correct I didn't know about 5g til about april of 22 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
While we are just choosing values
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:17 PM
You’re being obtuse but that number pretty well accounts for the number of preorders at the time
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
correct I didn't know about 5g til about april of 22 (edited)
most also knew it was usa only.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
not a mention of 5g in that video i believe
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:17 PM
We can’t talk price but did anything happen around that time relative to bitcoin?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You’re being obtuse but that number pretty well accounts for the number of preorders at the time
Again, based on what data. I will 100% agree with you if you can show me literally any concrete order numbers that are directly related to the 5g announcement
Avatar
shit happened daily for the last 3 years, lol
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Again, based on what data. I will 100% agree with you if you can show me literally any concrete order numbers that are directly related to the 5g announcement
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:18 PM
We are talking about dates in time
Avatar
No I meant the preorder numbers (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:19 PM
Oh just look at the Nebra onboards from batches 1-3 and the calchip connect hotspots onboarded after that date
Avatar
Please don’t ask me to go find data to back up your claim. That’s your role here (edited)
20:21
You’ll need to account for shipping windows as well
Avatar
also can I interject and say that this conversation is now officially off topic....
👆 1
👍 3
Avatar
100% agree. Sorry all
😉 1
Avatar
we need to learn from the mistakes of the past not rehash them... (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
also can I interject and say that this conversation is now officially off topic....
youre right, though i think its important to discuss opinion statements
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I did, as it sits i cant vote for it...
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
You’ll need to account for shipping windows as well
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:25 PM
In total there 105,000 calchip connect onboards and 48,000 Nebras. Even with double counting calchip connect hotspots that were already onboarded and assuming 30,000 more Nebras were preordered before they actually were, that’s 83% of the hotspots being purchased after 5G started contributing to HNT speculation
20:25
Was on board until the “assume” came out
Avatar
but can I get a gauge on something do we agree the the growth potential of mobile is much higher than IOT will be over the next year?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Was on board until the “assume” came out
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:27 PM
What exactly is your point here? That 1 million hotspots were ordered before February 2021?
20:27
From companies that hadn’t passed the HIP-19’process
Avatar
No. It’s to use verifiable data instead of “I bet it was 98%”
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Can we do a floor change temperature check? As written, HIP-80 proposes to give the IOT subDAO an explicit—but limited—advantage by setting its Floor to 50. The effect of this is to treat the IOT subDAO as if it is earning $75,000/month in data credit burn for a period of 4 years, then it reverts to 1. If you are in favor of reducing the IoT’s Floor from 50 to “some number”, then hit thumbs up. If you think it should stay at 50, hit thumbs down. (edited)
75k, 50k both way too high
Avatar
But again, getting off topic here sorry
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
No. It’s to use verifiable data instead of “I bet it was 98%”
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:29 PM
It is 98% if you use onboards as the metric which is verifiable on chain. That’s a terrible metric though because of preorders
20:29
Then if you take all of the hotspots that could have possibly been preordered with the available companies at the time it’s 83%
Avatar
This is exactly my point. We don’t have data to make these claims beyond you just saying numbers.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:30 PM
Also a bad metric
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
75k, 50k both way too high
Then that means that you would vote thumbs up. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also a bad metric
Yes, the metric you’ve chosen is bad. I agree?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:31 PM
Are you trolling?
20:31
Like we can’t nail down an exact number because it’s within a range of 2 numbers that we can verifiably figure out so it’s best to just say no number?
Avatar
No. It’s better to go do that work and use a verified number instead of telling me again that it can be done. If you can show the work and values I will happily champion your cause
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:32 PM
We don’t have the data from private companies
20:32
We won’t be able to get that information
Avatar
Then we have no claim
20:33
Still off topic so will stop here
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:33 PM
It’s off topic now because you know you are wrong
20:34
If a number is within a range of 83-98%, we cannot reasonably assume it is a number within that ballpark
Avatar
It’s not about me being wrong. Data is the story we need.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:34 PM
We have data, you don’t want to listen to the data
Avatar
if the data being discussed relates to this hip, its on topic. its fine. (edited)
partyparrot 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We have data, you don’t want to listen to the data
Show 👏 me 👏 the 👏 data
20:35
I want it desperately plz max
20:35
Not your assumptions. Real verifiable data
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:35 PM
Which numbers would you like? The number of onboards as of February 2021?
20:35
The number of Nebras and calchip connect devices ordered?
20:35
the number of hotspots today?
Avatar
Whatever data is backing up the claim that 5g spiked the onboards (edited)
Avatar
personally i dont have any numbers, though ive been on this discord pretty much all day, daily for 3 years (wow thats sad) and i can say that the vast majority of folks never even brought up 5g or even knew about it. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Whatever data is backing up the claim that 5g spiked the onboards (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:36 PM
Will keenan allow me to discuss historical price?
Avatar
cant 😦
20:36
sorry. i know is frustrating.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:37 PM
That’s fine, just kinda tough to provide the hard numbers sam wants without it
20:38
I respect the rules though
Avatar
you can direct us to external links
20:38
if that helps, not sure
20:38
Ideally a chart like this
20:38
Damn, y axis should say “onboard cumulative” or similar
20:39
Design is my passion btw thinkies
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:40 PM
Avatar
Wait, I though you were talking onboard numbers?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:42 PM
You want onboard numbers?
20:43
I’m on mobile, can you just run a query on the ETL?
20:43
Volunteer here trying to make the company you get paid by better. I’d think running a query is the least you could do here
❔ 1
Avatar
I will not run queries to back up your claim. You have to back up your claim.
👆 1
Avatar
Isn’t mobile already subsidizing IoT so far considering the fact that every mobile hotspot is a Lora hotspot? Does all this time to get a head-start on any other future networks not enough protection for IoT? Wasn’t it touted that a rising tide lift all boats when hip 51 was being proposed?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I will not run queries to back up your claim. You have to back up your claim.
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:48 PM
20:49
Thanks for coming out, @gutentag. Any more nonsense requests you have?
20:50
Or can we move on with the understanding that a significant percentage of the IOT subDAO had plenty of knowledge of 5G some day taking a percentage of the rewards at the time of their purchase (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Thanks for coming out, @gutentag. Any more nonsense requests you have?
Just one, next time you’re asked for data can you lead with that? Instead of the negotiation?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:51 PM
I’m sorry, but I thought a guy who is listed as a contributor to HIP-27 remembered that we had about 20,000 hotspots at the time it was proposed.
20:52
Really bizarre last hour. Not really sure what point you were trying to make when I was citing numbers that were all verifiable on chain
Avatar
I was asking you for those numbers. took you an hour to get them, but you held up your end so thank you 🙏 still have concerns on correlation vs causation, but we can table that for now
💯 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:55 PM
The ETL queries were taking forever on my phone and switching back and forth between discord and chrome didn’t help
👍 1
20:57
I felt like I provided plenty of alternate approaches to approximate the number based on the the facts at the time. Absolutely crazy the attitude some paid foundation employees seem to have towards unpaid volunteers (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I felt like I provided plenty of alternate approaches to approximate the number based on the the facts at the time. Absolutely crazy the attitude some paid foundation employees seem to have towards unpaid volunteers (edited)
still, "approximate" is the key term we are all trying to avoid to the best of our ability
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
still, "approximate" is the key term we are all trying to avoid to the best of our ability
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 8:59 PM
Yes, you’re an engineer who hates the business people.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes, you’re an engineer who hates the business people.
C’mon. Be nice.
Avatar
keep it peaceful here
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 9:03 PM
Very peaceful. I didn’t say I hated anyone, engineers don’t like the “suits” is a pretty standard tech trope
Avatar
ill echo what andrew said then, be nice 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 9:06 PM
He could have just run a simple query that Evan set up like a year ago but wanted to make a point that I don’t know how to pull data. I’m allowed to briefly gloat when he’s proven wrong.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Very peaceful. I didn’t say I hated anyone, engineers don’t like the “suits” is a pretty standard tech trope
So what about an engineer in a suit, hated by both? 🫠
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So what about an engineer in a suit, hated by both? 🫠
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 9:21 PM
I thought you all wore hoodies
Avatar
That certainly is the stereotype
21:25
Anyway, I’d have to agree the majority of IOT hotspots were delivered after 5G was put on the roadmap
21:26
Sold is a bit more difficult to determine, but even then I’d say the majority were
Avatar
The IoT network has enough of a head start to already be "protected" for years. All onboarding fees counted towards the Utility Score protects the IoT network even further, if not forever. (edited)
21:28
Floor of zero please.
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Floor of zero please.
Just pay your onboarding fees you cheap skate ❤️
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Just pay your onboarding fees you cheap skate ❤️
I am the one that argued for making the owners pay for them! Well right after we ask the Foundation to cover it. (edited)
😆 1
Avatar
I’ll stand in my sauce here: Max provided the data to support his claim, that’s all I was looking for. Meant no ill will or belittlement, and I’ve seen twitter, max only owns the top of a suit anyway 😅 (edited)
Avatar
Mobile onboarding fees $40 per gateway for now please.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I am the one that argued for making the owners pay for them! Well right after we ask the Foundation to cover it. (edited)
I’m obviously teasing you because I know you did
✅ 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I’ll stand in my sauce here: Max provided the data to support his claim, that’s all I was looking for. Meant no ill will or belittlement, and I’ve seen twitter, max only owns the top of a suit anyway 😅 (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 9:30 PM
Pants are overrated.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Just pay your onboarding fees you cheap skate ❤️
Also, I am the one that very much so argued for zero PoC rewards for the Mobile network from the beginning! Just turn on the data stream please. I will earn enough from it.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Pants are overrated.
Believe it’s called “Donald ducking it”
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Believe it’s called “Donald ducking it”
Business on top party down below
Avatar
I still believe the IOT network deserves some protection, esp with the way MOBILE will do what on the IOT side is widely considered gaming: pumping kingsized amounts of data through your own gateway
👆 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 9:35 PM
Yea I don’t think it should have no protection. Just think they A score was a good enough way to give it protection until other networks started to add devices.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I still believe the IOT network deserves some protection, esp with the way MOBILE will do what on the IOT side is widely considered gaming: pumping kingsized amounts of data through your own gateway
Originally, that was going to be thwarted by limiting phones to repeat use a radio with lots of data. I always assumed it would be some equation of "lots" of data "too many" times across "too few" days would be ignored.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea I don’t think it should have no protection. Just think they A score was a good enough way to give it protection until other networks started to add devices.
Unless a new subDAO has horrendously large onboarding fees, no subDAO will ever catch up to IoT's already ginormous DC burn from onboarding and assert fees. (edited)
Avatar
The beauty of the A score was/is that it protects IOT yet not in a way other networks can’t match. Every other network is extended that same possibility over a newcomer
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Unless a new subDAO has horrendously large onboarding fees, no subDAO will ever catch up to IoT's already ginormous DC burn from onboarding and assert fees. (edited)
Disagree. Say MOBILE pays $1 for each SIM they use, they’ll catch IOT eventually
21:38
Similarly, if protocol 3 comes along MOBILE will have some protection over that one
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Similarly, if protocol 3 comes along MOBILE will have some protection over that one
Agree with the second sentence for sure.
Avatar
(given that MOBILE actually starts paying)
Avatar
As soon as the Foundation covers our existing tab...
21:39
come on, business daddy.
21:41
No rewards starting April 19th...all those deadbeat mobile gateway owners like @gateholder will pay up real fast! oooh, we will finally know who has all those damn radios at the Netherland Apartments in Kansas City. You know they are going to scream loud when they are hit with an invoice of 210 * $40 !!!
Avatar
Cost of doing business, business daddy.
21:43
Just spent 210 x 2000 on radios, but this last 40 is going to make them bankrupt?
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
No rewards starting April 19th...all those deadbeat mobile gateway owners like @gateholder will pay up real fast! oooh, we will finally know who has all those damn radios at the Netherland Apartments in Kansas City. You know they are going to scream loud when they are hit with an invoice of 210 * $40 !!!
Actually maybe not. If they took the conservative data usage prediction I have for my host's commercial building, they probably have 10ish radios per floor behind a single gateway on each floor. So really they will just get hit with a bill of 10 * $40.
Avatar
I’d be surprised if a party like that didn’t brush it off like they got a parking ticket, I know I would. Be mad for the buhne
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Just spent 210 x 2000 on radios, but this last 40 is going to make them bankrupt?
All indoor radios.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
All indoor radios.
Ok so 210x 1500?
Avatar
And I am going to predict only 10 gateways in the one building. I think they have the seven story next door as well. (edited)
Avatar
I included actually putting them up, but if you want just radio price my point is probably still valid
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 9:47 PM
Just want to publicly apologize to @gutentag if he feels anything I said was out of line. We’re all on the same team here.
❤️ 1
Avatar
They will pay quietly.
21:50
So, I don't see a way out of the issue of a floor or not for IoT. Those against a floor are hard-pressed to compromise by agreeing to some low floor value as it fundamentally breaks the argument of 'IoT already has a stupendous advantage and long-term built in protection'. Those that agree for a floor can only be asked to compromise so far. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I still believe the IOT network deserves some protection, esp with the way MOBILE will do what on the IOT side is widely considered gaming: pumping kingsized amounts of data through your own gateway
How is legitimately using the network gaming for Lora?
Avatar
Buying $20 SIM card and using on your own network means the gaming has a cost of $0. The subDAO benefits from the usage at zero cost.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
How is legitimately using the network gaming for Lora?
If you use 7 netflix streams over 5G it’s ‘normal usage’ but if I use 50 sensors it’s gaming, according to some
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Buying $20 SIM card and using on your own network means the gaming has a cost of $0. The subDAO benefits from the usage at zero cost.
Basically this
21:51
I don’t care but it will become an arms race
Avatar
That will be the FUD next year when either network is pushing a goodly amount of data..."it is all fake data, people are just buying data and spending it on their own hotspots and getting most, if not all, their money back".
Avatar
It is what happened on day one of SIMs.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If you use 7 netflix streams over 5G it’s ‘normal usage’ but if I use 50 sensors it’s gaming, according to some
I don’t see how using your own sensors and recycling dc is gaming. Wether that’s one or 100 sensors (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It is what happened on day one of SIMs.
They will point to that party we all knew we were doing as a test event as if it was real.
Avatar
Sure, just like the data only hotspots
Avatar
We all knew we were doing it because it was exactly that; "free". Because as soon as we knew it wasn't free, we all stopped. 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
Kind of shows it wasn’t legitimate data after all doesn’t it? It wasn’t worth paying for, it was done because it was free anyway
💯 2
21:57
I don’t think we get to decide what is legitimate data and what isn’t, on neither network. But that also means that you will get an arms race.
👍 1
Avatar
That said, it was also portrayed as "please try these out for us" and not to worry about it "because you will be getting your money back".
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don’t think we get to decide what is legitimate data and what isn’t, on neither network. But that also means that you will get an arms race.
That is the difficult part of this. There is no real way to determine what data is real usage and what data is just laundering Data Credits.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 9:58 PM
I mean the majority of the IOT data ever used was also not legitimate so there’s that.
Avatar
As soon as someone thinks they have the right to call any IOT data gaming enough to slash while MOBILE gets to watch 7 netflix streams on their own gateway I’m going to riot.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 9:59 PM
Unless we believe the $25,000 worth of data transfer per month to seeed data only hotspots was legit
Avatar
Same way if someone thinks we can slash MOBILE while allowing IOT recycling, riot
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:00 PM
I don’t think data usage should be slashable gaming. Slashable stuff should be using your own token instead of HNT
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I mean the majority of the IOT data ever used was also not legitimate so there’s that.
Not true. I tracked my luggage all three of those times. Just cuz my eBike sits in the garage beeping every six hours doesn't mean it is illegitimate!
22:01
And the rat trap has notified me all three times it has had a successful kill!
22:01
But checks in once or twice a day I think.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:02 PM
Or like misreporting your data transfer when the Oracle reports to helium DAO (edited)
Avatar
That is an interesting point, data is essentially self reported on the subDAO level
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:03 PM
I think the A factor as written in 51 is another vector by having fake “online” hotspots
Avatar
$40 per gateway due by April 19th. Square root of whichever value is needed. All onboarding fees and all assert fees ever burned count. wen vote? (edited)
passed 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:04 PM
Another would be setting up a mechanism that rewards veHNT delegators more than the 6% and circumvents that rule
Avatar
And it is a "subDAO" and it provides governance of a "network". Thank you. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:07 PM
Individuals can certainly recycle HNT into tokens but back of the napkin math says it’s worse than 1:1 from the subDAOs perspective. (edited)
Avatar
The 1:1 recycle will get more difficult as you need 2 steps soon. You get DNT not HNT for the DC your gateway handles
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Just want to publicly apologize to @gutentag if he feels anything I said was out of line. We’re all on the same team here.
Passionate opinions/stances/voices is what makes this community and this project strong. so much is lost in text, mutual respect for your efforts Max 🍻 (edited)
🫂 1
Avatar
It does become a way to ‘buy’ DNT though
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The 1:1 recycle will get more difficult as you need 2 steps soon. You get DNT not HNT for the DC your gateway handles
Unless the DNT has inappropriate speculative value added in by the secondary market. Could be more than 1:1 sort of.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Unless the DNT has inappropriate speculative value added in by the secondary market. Could be more than 1:1 sort of.
Can’t be more than 1:1 or someone will arb it to death
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It does become a way to ‘buy’ DNT though
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:10 PM
Does it? Because you get the market value of the DNT, not the treasury backed value.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Can’t be more than 1:1 or someone will arb it to death
I would argue that at first someone arbitraging it may add to the inappropriate speculative value addition. "Look at all that data passing through the system! Wow must be worth even more than it should be!!" (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:10 PM
Unless you burn HNT, wait, then cycle back into DNT
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Does it? Because you get the market value of the DNT, not the treasury backed value.
My point was more that the DNT you receive isn’t removed from the secondary market
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I would argue that at first someone arbitraging it may add to the inappropriate speculative value addition. "Look at all that data passing through the system! Wow must be worth even more than it should be!!" (edited)
Which would mean token price increases, DC to DNT conversion decreases, system back to equilibrium
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:12 PM
Oh interesting so instead of buying it I burn HNT so as not to increase the price
Avatar
And with mobile, demand on the secondary market could be sustained for an oddly long amount of time as it takes a real effort to gather 500 million to become a service provider.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:14 PM
As a holder of HNT, I don’t see the downside of people wanting to buy HNT and then burn it. It seems like the good outweighs the bad
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 04/03/2023 10:14 PM
No discussions on buying or selling HNT please!
Avatar
We’re in dangerous territory now. (mostly my fault)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:15 PM
I’m in favor of inefficient incentives that yield positive results. The data score seems to be an example of that. It’s also a fourth root so it’s has a relatively small effect
Avatar
Would seem prudent for someone to gather 500 million now for the sole purpose of bargaining with a company that wishes to become a service provider at a later date. "Avoid the difficulty of gathering so many tokens and avoid the affect you have on the market by trying to gather 500 million by just getting the whole bag from me". Not a hard pitch to make. (edited)
Avatar
Just approach the Fdn for some with a good plan and buy 500 million DNT of goodwill in the process
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:17 PM
Yea just say you’ll do stuff eventually and they’ll give 15B mobile
coolcry 2
Avatar
I absolutely love all the discussion, but we really need to be bargaining on the decision... I will again, start the bidding: $40 per gateway due by April 19th. Square root of whichever value is needed. All onboarding fees and all assert fees ever burned count. (edited)
Avatar
It just needs teeth e.g. no rewards without onboarding by the 19th and it will get paid before the 19th
Avatar
"no rewards without onboarding by the 19th and it will get paid before the 19th" is perfect. (edited)
22:19
My $80 of HNT is ready to go.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:19 PM
I’d actually rather just hold onto the 35 HNT and the mobile I already have
22:20
I don’t think think I’m in an overwhelming minority either
Avatar
Then I nominate you to call the Foundation tomorrow and ask for the HNT to cover 8000 radios however many gateways at $40. (edited)
Avatar
Also fine, no rewards for you then. I mean is that level of commitment the thing we’re afraid of here? That MOBILE gateways will just turn off?
22:22
How many FreedomFi’s are we talking about anyway, if Nova wants something happening with Helium Mobile and doesn’t want to risk more people are like Max then they can pay
22:22
Someone has to pay by 19th
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:23 PM
Are we doing gateways?
22:23
Just make radios into NFTs
22:23
If we’re going to do that we should just make it $5
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Someone has to pay by 19th
Owners are ultimately responsible. They can risk it and not pay by the 19th on the hopes that Max gets Nova, Foundation, or the manufactures to pay by then.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If we’re going to do that we should just make it $5
Save this great idea for later please. We already know there is no way to pull it off by the 19th.
22:24
It has to be gateways for now.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Owners are ultimately responsible. They can risk it and not pay by the 19th on the hopes that Max gets Nova, Foundation, or the manufactures to pay by then.
Basically yes, either pay or make someone else pay for you, but it has to be paid. That’s simply the easiest way forward
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Basically yes, either pay or make someone else pay for you, but it has to be paid. That’s simply the easiest way forward
Or no rewards. People who don't care about PoC can certainly decide not to pay.
Avatar
Then write a new hip for just the V factor, another HIP for changing onboarding fees etc
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Basically yes, either pay or make someone else pay for you, but it has to be paid. That’s simply the easiest way forward
But it isn't this solution for HIP79 though?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Or no rewards. People who don't care about PoC can certainly decide not to pay.
No rewards is no rewards, also no data rewards. Without onboarding you don’t exist
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:26 PM
Onboarding fee we kinda discussed in the mobile working group.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
No rewards is no rewards, also no data rewards. Without onboarding you don’t exist
More harsh than I would take, but I can compromise. 🙂 Fucking harsh it is.
Avatar
From a technical point of view it makes most sense
22:27
You don’t get data rewards on the iot side without onboarding either
Avatar
Avatar
groot
From a technical point of view it makes most sense
I understand. Black or white is definitely easier to code than 64 shades of grey.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:28 PM
I’d like to see some evidence that the V score needs to be changed before we change it, personally. I’m not against it but HIP-39 was predicated on the fact that JMF’s hosts complained they only made 1 HNT a day and change the V score is predicated by James thinking it could be gamed by whales (it very well could be, just haven’t seen anything backing that statement up)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’d like to see some evidence that the V score needs to be changed before we change it, personally. I’m not against it but HIP-39 was predicated on the fact that JMF’s hosts complained they only made 1 HNT a day and change the V score is predicated by James thinking it could be gamed by whales (it very well could be, just haven’t seen anything backing that statement up)
Which is why it needs its own HIP
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:29 PM
Agreed. We can also make a $5 minimum onboard HIP
22:29
Even a mobile phone as a mapper, $5 is nothing in the grand scheme of activating a customer.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Even a mobile phone as a mapper, $5 is nothing in the grand scheme of activating a customer.
"Would you like to earn mobile by mapping using your phone?" "Yes." "Please pay $5 of HNT for the privilege of mapping." "Done."
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:31 PM
Na, Nova would do it and bill them $5
Avatar
All we need now is a "pay for onboarding or gtfo" HIP
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:31 PM
That’s what 78 was supposed to be
Avatar
Avatar
groot
All we need now is a "pay for onboarding or gtfo" HIP
I want to be second author on that one! (edited)
Avatar
Yea but the author withdrew 78
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:32 PM
Ferebee saw I liked it and and decided to withdraw
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’d like to see some evidence that the V score needs to be changed before we change it, personally. I’m not against it but HIP-39 was predicated on the fact that JMF’s hosts complained they only made 1 HNT a day and change the V score is predicated by James thinking it could be gamed by whales (it very well could be, just haven’t seen anything backing that statement up)
So how do we go about gathering data to confirm the V score needs to change?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:34 PM
I mean we can run models with a ton of different scenarios and see the effects.
22:35
It would be much easier to run those models next month when we know how much HNT gets staked with the 3x multiplier
Avatar
@groot do you have additional powers that can allow you to run this query but with 7 days. I have tried multiple times and it always fails. I even tried asking for just one day's worth.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
@groot do you have additional powers that can allow you to run this query but with 7 days. I have tried multiple times and it always fails. I even tried asking for just one day's worth.
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:36 PM
Gutentag might.
🤘 1
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
what on earth is that
22:36
just tell me what you want it to do because I refuse to use metabase 'let me do it for you' mode coolcry
Avatar
Trying to find out how much each gateway made each day but I need to also include the hex ID
22:37
It is to answer a question Max had in the IoT working group that I found very interesting.
22:38
Do hexes with lots of hotspots actually make more than non-dense hexes? (edited)
Avatar
can you backtick it? ``` before it and ``` behind it
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:39 PM
Let’s move that discussion to the fishbowl
Avatar
there is no fishbowl we're all in 🙃
Avatar
Avatar
groot
can you backtick it? ``` before it and ``` behind it
you want \"gateway"\ ? or \"gateway\" ? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/03/2023 10:42 PM
Oh didn’t realize keith was mobile only
✅ 1
Avatar
Well, that was lively. Good thing I was asleep. I must say I’m nonplussed by the large proportion of shitposting and handwaving vs. examination of facts, but then again, the British Parliament, birthplace of democracy, seems to operate to a large extent by jeering and yelling, so who am I to judge. It does look like each participant did use at least one number, so that’s good to see.
01:26
I’ll post some more numbers. The benchmark we have is HIP-51, so I‘ll just go ahead and compare the Utility Score formula proposed in HIP-80 with the one from HIP-51. Note: these comparisons don’t include the V factor. Instead, they assume that IOT and MOBILE delegate the same amount of veHNT, so the V factors cancel out. We have been discussing the V factor, and it seems there is broad support for using the square root of the veHNT delegation for V, which helps to ensure the networks can compete on their merits without worrying that a whale can override everything else with a large delegation. In any case, V is a separate discussion from what these models show.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 1:28 AM
We can't not include the v-score. Its the most influential score
01:30
There's going to be way more veHNT delegated than any of the other factors. There's 30 million HNT staked right now, multiply that by 3 and thats 90 million without factoring in newly staked veHNT and multipliers for longer lock ups
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 1:38 AM
Like a lot of those early models circulating for HIP-51 were intentionally leaving out the v factor to make it look better for IOT (I made the screenshot that capcom kept showing) (edited)
01:39
But the sheer scale of the V factor makes it so a 51/49 split of the V factor essentially overtakes the other scores
01:40
Unless im totally off and it won't be in the billions
Avatar
Let me see if I can answer that in a non-confrontational manner… OK, here goes. The V factor is one element of the Score. AFAIK there is broad support for V = max(1, sqrt(veHNT)) though of course there are alternatives, but I don’t remember any convincing proposal there. As I did show previously, the sqrt(veHNT) factor does in fact give a better path to entry for new subDAOs, which you had been advocating for. So while HIP-80 does currently propose a formula for the Score that includes the sqrt(veHNT) term, that could be changed, or that V factor could be used with the formula given in HIP-51, or a different one. If you like sqrt(veHNT) too, then that’s great, we could agree on that. Or perhaps you would like to propose a different V factor? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 1:42 AM
I have no issue with the V factor. I think its a difficult number to project how much veHNT there will be. Luckily the landrush should make that clear within the first 7 days post migration so we can take out a lot of the guess work.
01:42
we may need to 4th root v score. Its really hard to tell without knowing how much veHNT there will be
Avatar
Well, if you are cool with the V factor as proposed in HIP-80, or at least with the approach that it should be less than the linear factor as specified in HIP-51, why not let me post the models that show how the other factors of HIP-51 and HIP-80 compare? 😊
👆 1
01:45
I think it’s useful to reduce its influence to the square root ASAP. I don’t oppose your view that it might be useful to reduce it further, and perhaps we would need to move to do so. No reason we can’t do that.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 1:48 AM
So here's a question, can we make this HIP accomplish the following: If you do not pay to onboard a device it will not count in your A score. Starting on May 1, 2023 there will be a mandatory minimum $5 onboard fee for any device that earns a DNT. Devices that earn without being onboard will make a subDAO subject to slashing
01:49
Then we can work on the rest post migration when we have more data
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
So here's a question, can we make this HIP accomplish the following: If you do not pay to onboard a device it will not count in your A score. Starting on May 1, 2023 there will be a mandatory minimum $5 onboard fee for any device that earns a DNT. Devices that earn without being onboard will make a subDAO subject to slashing
Well, I think the A factor is difficult to model, difficult to understand, unnecessarily complicated, and not the best way to achieve the goals I mentioned earlier. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1092576984636338186 It’s a valid question whether the V factor using the square root is the best solution. Maybe we should specifically state in HIP-80 that the V factor is subject to future change as more data comes in? I accept your view that we have incomplete information now. If we add a statement to that effect, it would give notice to people who are deciding how much HNT to lock that they should not rely on the square root indefinitely.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 1:55 AM
I think the A needs to be revamped for sure, especially since there is wiggle room in what an "active" device even is
01:57
I love throwing little statements on HIPs stating the intention of the HIP writers. I would be in favor of a HIP defining a minimum onboard with a disclaimer that the V will likely change post migration (edited)
Avatar
intentions are useless though, intentions can change, be executed, not executed, etc.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
intentions are useless though, intentions can change, be executed, not executed, etc.
You also stop shitposting please, sir. 😉 It does no damage to state intentions.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I love throwing little statements on HIPs stating the intention of the HIP writers. I would be in favor of a HIP defining a minimum onboard with a disclaimer that the V will likely change post migration (edited)
Note that while I do personally think there is little reason for a subDAO to go above a stated minimum, if we do remove the A factor, I’m not opposed to that at all, and indeed I submitted a PR to change it to a minimum days ago. 😉 https://github.com/helium/HIP/pull/602/files
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Note that while I do personally think there is little reason for a subDAO to go above a stated minimum, if we do remove the A factor, I’m not opposed to that at all, and indeed I submitted a PR to change it to a minimum days ago. 😉 https://github.com/helium/HIP/pull/602/files
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:01 AM
They will go over the minimum if the A factor was correctly scaled to incentivize that
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They will go over the minimum if the A factor was correctly scaled to incentivize that
That is true. The A factor was originally proposed as a way to deliver a founder’s bonus to IOT, and HIP-80 proposes a different, explicit way to do that, which can be easily tuned depending on what amount of founder’s bonus people think is appropriate, without introducing complex interdependencies on other incentives. This simplification is one of the things HIP-80 proposes as a useful goal.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:04 AM
but onboard burn is good for HNT
Avatar
Well, one point of view is that charging networks to onboard by making them burn HNT is good for HNT. (That is opposed BTW to your argument that we should not charge networks to join Helium, but instead make it inviting.) The other point of view is that the cheaper we can make network buildout, the more DC Burn we can achieve through usage.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:07 AM
A small fee per device is different from limiting the upside potential to serve the interests of one subDAO
Avatar
So if we could stop arguing for a moment about other things, I really would like to post those number I’ve been talking about, if that’s OK. I thought the most contentious piece here was the IOT founder’s bonus. How about we take a look how that could be adjusted.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:07 AM
in that scenario its equitable
02:08
its 4 am for me so probably not the best time do a deep dive into numbers
Avatar
So you would rather I don’t post actual models of anything, and we continue discussing based on unknowns? I’ll go pour another cup of coffee, back in a minute.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:10 AM
no, you can post stuff, i just may fall asleep in the next 5-10 minutes
Avatar
So, as I was going to say… Here I’d like to show that we can adjust the weight of the “founder’s bonus” given to IOT simply by varying the Floor coefficient of the HIP-80 formula. Is $75,000 the right level of implied monthly DC burn to assign to IOT while its network develops? I think so, which is why we put it in the original draft. And if MOBILE can’t surpass that fairly soon, we have bigger problems. But opinions differ. So here are some other numbers. Again, these comparisons assume a 50:50 distribution of veHNT delegation between IOT and MOBILE, and thus disregard the V factor, which we have discussed separately.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:13 AM
$75,000 per month seems like a pretty tough barrier to crack before the next halving
Avatar
Here I’d like to show that we can adjust the weight of the “founder’s bonus” given to IOT simply by varying the Floor coefficient of the HIP-80 formula. Is $75,000 the right level of implied monthly DC burn to assign to IOT while its network develops? [reiterating for pin] (edited)
02:14
(edited)
02:14
02:15
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:15 AM
can you post the links to the sheets?
02:15
easier for me to dig into the model in excel
Avatar
They are in Numbers. It would be great if you could re-check the calculations independently. It’s really not complicated. The HIP-80 formula is particularly simple. You can probably start from the Google Sheet in HIP-51.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:17 AM
can you save it as an excel file?
02:17
the european commas vs. american decimal points may mess it up though
Avatar
Can we assume, for the remaining 5 minutes you are awake, that the numbers are correct? What do you think of the results? The advantage is, if they turn out to be incorrect later, you can shout at me more.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:20 AM
I think the DC burn is kinda worthless compared to the veHNT delegation
02:20
that's my biggest takeaway here
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think the DC burn is kinda worthless compared to the veHNT delegation
How do you propose to deal with that, other than taking the square root of veHNT, as proposed in HIP-80? How do you feel about the relative distributions, based on the different Floor coefficients of IOT founder’s bonus?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:21 AM
$5 million in a months gets you 408 points, that can be offset by staking less than 2 more HNT for 4 years
Avatar
I don’t understand how that relates to the numbers I posted above… Does it? Or do you think the numbers above are cool? Do you prefer $75,000 or $20,000?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:25 AM
It just conceptually there shouldn't be a founders bonus that can't be overcome by burning more HNT and building a bigger network. It also has an almost 0 effect unless there is actually an exact 50/50 split of the veHNT.
02:26
So it doesn't accomplish the goal it sets out to accomplish and it creates a situation where there is a perception of favortism
Avatar
So far, as far as I can tell, we have two proposals for the V factor. Linear, per HIP-51, or square root, per HIP-80. And we have two proposals for the rest of the Score, which are compared above. Per HIP-80, at different times in the development of the networks (yes these are arbitrary assumptions of the growth trajectories), the distribution of HNT between the networks, without considering the V factor, varies, very roughly, between 10:1 and 10:1. A 100x difference. I don’t think that’s irrelevant. The other valid question remains, how should veHNT be layered on top of that. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 2:33 AM
just look at the scale of the numbers. assume 1B veHNT at the start and look at the effect 510,000,000 vs. 490,000,000 delegate to each subdao and the affects it has
Avatar
I must be missing something. The effect of the V factor, in that scenario, multiplied onto the numbers in the models above, gives an extra 2% to th subDAO with the 510M veHNT per linear V factor as in HIP-51, and it gives an extra 1% to the subDAO with the 510M veHNT per square root veHNT factor as in HIP-80.
Avatar
The V factor is multiplied onto the rest of the Score. With your example, 1B veHNT distributed between two subDAOs, here is how a hypothetically equal distribution of the other factors is modified by the V factor: (edited)
03:02
Avatar
I think this shows how a hypothetical new subDAO could get a foot in the door. 1B veHNT corresponds to 10M HNT locked for 48 months, a reasonable ballpark of what we expect. To launch, a new subDAO has to find DC burn somewhere—we’re not going to give it a founder’s bonus, except it gets credited with $1/day burn even if it has zero burn. Then, if it can muster 5M veHNT, corresponding to 50,000 HNT locked for 48 months, it could get a V factor that would definitely put it on the map. This actually gives quite an attractive advantage to new subDAOs.
ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 04/04/2023 3:16 AM
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, I think the A factor is difficult to model, difficult to understand, unnecessarily complicated, and not the best way to achieve the goals I mentioned earlier. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1092576984636338186 It’s a valid question whether the V factor using the square root is the best solution. Maybe we should specifically state in HIP-80 that the V factor is subject to future change as more data comes in? I accept your view that we have incomplete information now. If we add a statement to that effect, it would give notice to people who are deciding how much HNT to lock that they should not rely on the square root indefinitely.
Maybe we should specifically state in HIP-80 that the V factor is subject to future change as more data comes in?
Let's do this.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, I think the A factor is difficult to model, difficult to understand, unnecessarily complicated, and not the best way to achieve the goals I mentioned earlier. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1092576984636338186 It’s a valid question whether the V factor using the square root is the best solution. Maybe we should specifically state in HIP-80 that the V factor is subject to future change as more data comes in? I accept your view that we have incomplete information now. If we add a statement to that effect, it would give notice to people who are deciding how much HNT to lock that they should not rely on the square root indefinitely.
If we add a statement to that effect, it would give notice to people who are deciding how much HNT to lock that they should not rely on the square root indefinitely.
I seriously doubt that changes to the subDAO utility score significantly influence the decision of people, how much HNT to lock up and for how long. (Unless there were changes that are a total clusterfuck, kill Helium and everyone should just pack up and run. But I don't nelieve that that will happen)
(edited)
03:28
Here is my reasoning, which you haven't commented upon yet, afai can see. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1091673318953844736
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Maybe we should specifically state in HIP-80 that the V factor is subject to future change as more data comes in?
Let's do this.
(I was AFK over the weekend, as promised 😉 and didn’t have anything useful to add to that.) I just believe I’m not clever enough to think of all the strategies people might devise, even if they are misguided, and it can be annoying if the rules of the games are fundamentally changed after the opening bell. But I see no need for me to harp on that further, and I’m not opposed at all to adding a statement to that effect if people like it.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
(I was AFK over the weekend, as promised 😉 and didn’t have anything useful to add to that.) I just believe I’m not clever enough to think of all the strategies people might devise, even if they are misguided, and it can be annoying if the rules of the games are fundamentally changed after the opening bell. But I see no need for me to harp on that further, and I’m not opposed at all to adding a statement to that effect if people like it.
The message I want to come across is: don't worry about that one, no need. Adding the statement you suggested should be sufficient.
Avatar
feedback from the Q&A: HNT isn't simple a settlement system that can be replicated on other blockchains, it's a unique rewards model that enables physical bootstrapping. We should expect subDAOs knocking on the door post-migration because the migration to Solana simplifies the backend work and onboarding process for the developers involved. i think voting on this before the 18th is vital because of the 7 day landrush bonus, we should optimistically expect multiple subDAOs proposed in that time frame. (even if the DAOs aren't proposed in this window, i expect folks to ape on veHNT if they're planning on it) this formula should be determined by then because it greatly impacts the utility score, which should be a primary motivator for potential subDAOs. imo, there should be no 'guaranteed slice', and your stake should be your 'skin in the game', which can be done to scale in accordance with a desired utility score based on the math provided in this HIP. no onboarding subDAO should be under the impression they can expect opex funding simply by onboarding to the flywheel. that's mad hazardous, should come to the table with a working model that can scale. good work chris, thanks everyone for your time in the call today (edited)
💜 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/04/2023 8:02 AM
I'd hate to see that $75k stunt mobile and where it's just a random number it's hard to say what's right here, obviously to me I favour it , hip80 makes sense but I can see why others push back on it , and it's not like we don't have figures that aren't cherry picked, we have onboarding (edited)
08:03
What if it doesn't get the data it needs ? Lots of assumptions going on
Avatar
The only reason the expectation is that mobile immediately takes off is because of people gaming it to death anyway. Day 1 of esims entire sims were cycled through their own radios (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/04/2023 8:05 AM
Right then 80 makes sense with the floor
Avatar
Put in some unlimited Helium Mobile plans and you have the perfect storm of fake data
08:06
It’s going to happen, denying it or saying ‘well we have slashing’ is ignorant. Where there is an incentive there is gaming 🤷
👆 1
Avatar
yea any 'free DC' will ruin the utility score. if anyone is offering 'free' plans, they need to have a determined price that is paid for irl using the subDAO treasury, DC burnt irl, and the 'free' plan provided to the user. we can't just open the gate for friends. edit- i realize by 'set price' i mean set cap, so what im referring to is a limited plan lol. nvm (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I'd hate to see that $75k stunt mobile and where it's just a random number it's hard to say what's right here, obviously to me I favour it , hip80 makes sense but I can see why others push back on it , and it's not like we don't have figures that aren't cherry picked, we have onboarding (edited)
TBH if $75K attributed to IOT “stunts” MOBILE, MOBILE is a complete failure. 😆 What @groot said.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
TBH if $75K attributed to IOT “stunts” MOBILE, MOBILE is a complete failure. 😆 What @groot said.
You don’t know how many fake sensors fit on 128GB of RAM 🤫
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The only reason the expectation is that mobile immediately takes off is because of people gaming it to death anyway. Day 1 of esims entire sims were cycled through their own radios (edited)
but this also does at least burn HNT
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
but this also does at least burn HNT
So gaming for the greater good? Great sell 👍
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So gaming for the greater good? Great sell 👍
but is there a way to game this with software or would you litterally have to have this
08:25
and even then you would be constarianed by the output of the radio....
Avatar
You’re not paying for onboarding and now you want free gaming advice too? Troll
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You’re not paying for onboarding and now you want free gaming advice too? Troll
no just honest questions
08:26
by the way I was totally for just paying 40$ a gateway to get this over with but there are other considerations ...
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
TBH if $75K attributed to IOT “stunts” MOBILE, MOBILE is a complete failure. 😆 What @groot said.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/04/2023 8:28 AM
And for iot to hit 75k is a massive massive undertaking
08:28
Hip80 favours me I'm not against it, just helping max
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
And for iot to hit 75k is a massive massive undertaking
Buy an oui, we’ll make it work in a day or 2 🤫
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/04/2023 8:29 AM
Just change the Rx delay and I can burn data like mobile can day 1
08:29
Lol
Avatar
It’s for the greater good, gateholder just said so
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I'd hate to see that $75k stunt mobile and where it's just a random number it's hard to say what's right here, obviously to me I favour it , hip80 makes sense but I can see why others push back on it , and it's not like we don't have figures that aren't cherry picked, we have onboarding (edited)
I did think of having the 50 number change to 53 and then drop by 1 every 1st of the month so that by Aug 1 2027 halving its 1 with all the others. I hate numbers falling off cliffs, I'd rather linear declines or even squrt/exponential. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
I did think of having the 50 number change to 53 and then drop by 1 every 1st of the month so that by Aug 1 2027 halving its 1 with all the others. I hate numbers falling off cliffs, I'd rather linear declines or even squrt/exponential. (edited)
I almost like it better in reverse why not just add a multiplier to the data for IOT something like a 5 so if they burn 1000 dollars of data its 5000 in the score calc
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
I did think of having the 50 number change to 53 and then drop by 1 every 1st of the month so that by Aug 1 2027 halving its 1 with all the others. I hate numbers falling off cliffs, I'd rather linear declines or even squrt/exponential. (edited)
Remember, we don’t understand sqrt
🐳 1
🔥 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The V factor is multiplied onto the rest of the Score. With your example, 1B veHNT distributed between two subDAOs, here is how a hypothetically equal distribution of the other factors is modified by the V factor: (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 8:55 AM
Yes you’re right. As I said, 4 am was a bad time for me to do math
Avatar
So how about we, instead of the proposed floor, make the floor dynamic such that iot will take 1) their fair share based on data usage iff > 75%; or 2) revalue the data usage of iot to get it to 75% while increasing to at most 75k? (edited)
alwaysthinking 1
08:57
Makes no sense to give iot the 75k if mobile is at 3k
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Put in some unlimited Helium Mobile plans and you have the perfect storm of fake data
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 8:57 AM
It’s not fake data though, someone is paying for it
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Hip80 favours me I'm not against it, just helping max
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:04 AM
HIP 80 favors me too.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
I did think of having the 50 number change to 53 and then drop by 1 every 1st of the month so that by Aug 1 2027 halving its 1 with all the others. I hate numbers falling off cliffs, I'd rather linear declines or even squrt/exponential. (edited)
There is merit to this approach.
Avatar
What do you think: what percentage of veHNT will belong to people who would be willing to not delegate based on considerations of maximizing subDAO token rewards, - but with the main motivation to keep the networks alive, if ever the rewards share between MOBILE and IOT might be highly skewed to a degree that threatens the survival/thriving of any of them? (edited)
09:20
..................... And: do we know if the free 30 day Helium Mobile trial for Solana Saga phone users not only comprises free voice and text, but also unlimited data? If it does, there might be quite some data consumption in the early days (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:25 AM
There is no free data though. Someone is paying
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There is no free data though. Someone is paying
Not the one getting the rewards though, and this was also the case with the data only hotspots on lora and still people screamed gaming
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:33 AM
I just don’t see fake data being a rabbit hole we want to start going down. If that’s the fear, $75k does little to combat that anyway.
👆 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/04/2023 9:33 AM
I think I'm hearing no one's writing another hip tho? Right?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Not the one getting the rewards though, and this was also the case with the data only hotspots on lora and still people screamed gaming
so if the mobile user was tokenized would that have any effect to you? but really I am not sure even what you are proposing is even possible.. and even if I managed to just build a "bot farm" it wouldn't benefit me it would try to lift the entire MOBILE subDAO
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I think I'm hearing no one's writing another hip tho? Right?
I am doing the math and working with ferebee might have another chat here once I have some actual maths to present (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:35 AM
Like if groot wants to watch porn while he watches netflix, is the Netflix going to be considered gaming because he’s not actively watching it?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/04/2023 9:35 AM
An alteration Vs alternate tho right?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
An alteration Vs alternate tho right?
well im working with both hip 53 and hip 80 models
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
so if the mobile user was tokenized would that have any effect to you? but really I am not sure even what you are proposing is even possible.. and even if I managed to just build a "bot farm" it wouldn't benefit me it would try to lift the entire MOBILE subDAO
It’s possible, and yes it lifts the entire subDAO. But if you think that is unimportant I don’t see why the V factor should be considered in this HIP
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:41 AM
Why do we hate the A scale? Like it perfectly encapsulates what we’re trying to quantify here. It also encourages token burn.
09:43
The issue, from my understanding, is that it’s difficult to have dynamic pricing on onboard fees under the current system (as pointed out in Charles Fayal’s Twitter discussion that started this whole removal talk). A flat number based on historical onboard DC burn is the easiest and removes the ability for subDAOs to misrepresent what is “online”
Avatar
We don’t but somehow there is this idea that we can’t get mobile gateways to pay
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:44 AM
The discussion in the mobile committee was kinda like why bother if HIP-80 passes
09:45
There are plenty of options to solve that problem that doesn’t involve a complete overhaul and removing it
Avatar
I need some one from nova to tell me how many 1st wave mobile users there are @capcom to better understand the math for the short term of this calculation
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I need some one from nova to tell me how many 1st wave mobile users there are @capcom to better understand the math for the short term of this calculation
I wouldn’t call out capcom for that. It would be better to ask if this proposed change to the subDAO Utility score causes concern for the network’s biggest customer. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:46 AM
That data is useless anyway.
Avatar
well TBH this is prob the most important thing to get sorted out today
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:47 AM
Why? What assumptions do you plan on making about which radios that data will go to?
09:48
Are you expecting people to pay nova $5/gig so they can cycle $.50 per gig, pre tax, to themselves
😂 1
Avatar
I just need a ball park
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:49 AM
It’s not going to be a good data point and shouldn’t be used in your math
09:49
Your model will be flawed if you start with that assumption
09:50
Also why are people trying to have private conversations? Just save time and discuss in public
09:52
based on this chart the answer I believe resides in hip 80 no floor with the reserved pie being 25% for now but either at some point get rid of it or change it as we bring in other sub DAOs (edited)
09:53
with the 25% it locks in both mobile and IOT to get 12.5% of emissions
09:53
solves both the short term mobile problem and longer term IOT problem
09:54
and is actually quite simple...
09:55
message me if you want to play with the spread sheet
Avatar
As soon as economics is involved everyone starts playing in private rooms, why all the secrecy?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
message me if you want to play with the spread sheet
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:59 AM
You can post files in discord
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You can post files in discord
right I just want to limit whos messing with the math I guess Ill just make a copy
10:01
Sheet1 Emission to miners (HNT),55,890 subDAO Network Data Transfer and Device Count in Epoch X LoRaWAN DC burned (in USD),$500.00,5G DC burned (in USD),$708.33,WiFi DC burned (in USD),$1.00,resevered pie,25%,10%,resevered pie,25%,10% LoRaWAN Devices (#),460,000,5G Devices,3,700,WiFi Devices,1 U...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:07 AM
Alright cool, I guess we can just close this channel then if the discussion has moved to DMs
Avatar
“reserved slices” is totally unscalable. what about when there’s 25 subDAOs? what if half of them are a bust and dont move data? how long do you get 25%? what if there’s only 2 subDAOs for a decade? what if you stake 5x the veHNT as the other subDAOs, what you only stake 1/5th the amount? etc “guaranteed” HNT delegation is a huge liability and a really likely way to have a bunch of folks pissed of when it doesn’t look exactly like that, and to the concern of others could be manipulated by short term players who have no intention of a long standing relationship with the network. your DC burn is your proof, your stake is your skin in the game. Especially since mobile miners technically didn’t pay an onboarding fee, the formula needs to be readdressed one way or another. needing to reassess this formula with each subDAO proposed will be exhausting, and likely impose necessary changes to each preexisting subDAO. This equation needs to take into account network size, node count, data consumption, veHNT stake, and it needs to do so in a way that can coexist with new subDAOs coming up to the table who did not participate in this governance in any way.
👆 1
Avatar
What’s the current reasoning behind not just requiring Mobile to pay an onboarding fee with limited HNT until they do as pressure? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
“reserved slices” is totally unscalable. what about when there’s 25 subDAOs? what if half of them are a bust and dont move data? how long do you get 25%? what if there’s only 2 subDAOs for a decade? what if you stake 5x the veHNT as the other subDAOs, what you only stake 1/5th the amount? etc “guaranteed” HNT delegation is a huge liability and a really likely way to have a bunch of folks pissed of when it doesn’t look exactly like that, and to the concern of others could be manipulated by short term players who have no intention of a long standing relationship with the network. your DC burn is your proof, your stake is your skin in the game. Especially since mobile miners technically didn’t pay an onboarding fee, the formula needs to be readdressed one way or another. needing to reassess this formula with each subDAO proposed will be exhausting, and likely impose necessary changes to each preexisting subDAO. This equation needs to take into account network size, node count, data consumption, veHNT stake, and it needs to do so in a way that can coexist with new subDAOs coming up to the table who did not participate in this governance in any way.
you missed it, Im saying this is a temp solution but it even works going forward at least for the first few but this will of course need to be modified in the future but it solves our currant problem
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
What’s the current reasoning behind not just requiring Mobile to pay an onboarding fee with limited HNT until they do as pressure? (edited)
TBH the math of hip 53 MOBILE would destroy IOT as it sits look at the link I posted and put in like 10$ for onboarding of gateways and you will see as you scale data it would most likly swallow IOT (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
“reserved slices” is totally unscalable. what about when there’s 25 subDAOs? what if half of them are a bust and dont move data? how long do you get 25%? what if there’s only 2 subDAOs for a decade? what if you stake 5x the veHNT as the other subDAOs, what you only stake 1/5th the amount? etc “guaranteed” HNT delegation is a huge liability and a really likely way to have a bunch of folks pissed of when it doesn’t look exactly like that, and to the concern of others could be manipulated by short term players who have no intention of a long standing relationship with the network. your DC burn is your proof, your stake is your skin in the game. Especially since mobile miners technically didn’t pay an onboarding fee, the formula needs to be readdressed one way or another. needing to reassess this formula with each subDAO proposed will be exhausting, and likely impose necessary changes to each preexisting subDAO. This equation needs to take into account network size, node count, data consumption, veHNT stake, and it needs to do so in a way that can coexist with new subDAOs coming up to the table who did not participate in this governance in any way.
also there will be a vote on each new subDAO going forward so this will just be a part of the calculous
10:31
this also guarantees mobile "emissions" before helium mobile launches...
Avatar
i see. perhaps we could discuss and implement a trial period for new subDAOs that give the community time to react to the impact on HNT delegation? After we move to Solana, it’ll be easier for newcomers to run along side the existing subDAOs on devnet to observe in real time the impact? or further, gate subDAO onboards into a 3 month live-trial where there is an assessment period, allowing the community to vote on the dividing of the pie, or accepting the subDAO permanently at all (the formula for dividing the pie should be set in stone at that point though, i think) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
TBH the math of hip 53 MOBILE would destroy IOT as it sits look at the link I posted and put in like 10$ for onboarding of gateways and you will see as you scale data it would most likly swallow IOT (edited)
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/04/2023 10:31 AM
so make the 80 changes to 53 around vehnt?
10:31
and charge for onboarding and its good?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
so make the 80 changes to 53 around vehnt?
this works better yes, but IMO there is a short term problem with mobile since there will be no data flowing for the first 4-10 weeks (most likely or very little) also even with that math mobile can eclipse IOT even in a model similar to the one your describing this gives in my mind much more clarity of what is going to happen stabililty is key and if you could point and say for say the first 6 months this is the high and the low (being more constrained) is more appealing
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
you missed it, Im saying this is a temp solution but it even works going forward at least for the first few but this will of course need to be modified in the future but it solves our currant problem
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:37 AM
The whole point of 51 was to create an architecture that doesn’t require ad hoc changes for new subDAOs. Your proposal undoes that. Respectfully, you weren’t around for HIP-37. Nothing you are suggesting will happen in reality.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
so make the 80 changes to 53 around vehnt?
if mobile gets to 1% of the US market thats roughly 5B$ in valuation (using currant telcom stats)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/04/2023 10:38 AM
so what do you propose instead?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
What’s the current reasoning behind not just requiring Mobile to pay an onboarding fee with limited HNT until they do as pressure? (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:39 AM
Can we get this question answered? This is an important question.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The whole point of 51 was to create an architecture that doesn’t require ad hoc changes for new subDAOs. Your proposal undoes that. Respectfully, you weren’t around for HIP-37. Nothing you are suggesting will happen in reality.
I disagree and anyone who has run a bootstrapped business knows following a rigid ruleset in the beginning is folly but absolutely essential in the mid to long term but I am suggesting we are not there yet and we need a stop gap before merge..
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I disagree and anyone who has run a bootstrapped business knows following a rigid ruleset in the beginning is folly but absolutely essential in the mid to long term but I am suggesting we are not there yet and we need a stop gap before merge..
That was 100% the idea of HIP51 though, I think it's actually in there verbatim.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:40 AM
Don’t you run a bunch of sandwich franchises with rigid rules? Seems to work pretty well there
10:41
Like there was a HIP reducing miner HNT by 0.9% and people went fucking crazy. It has to be rigid
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Don’t you run a bunch of sandwich franchises with rigid rules? Seems to work pretty well there
if we had followed all those rules to start we wouldn't have been nearly as successful we also have 3 independents we run (edited)
10:44
and many different businesses that allowed us to get to even that starting point but there is a clear distinction and I am of the opinion we are not at the point where ridged rules of this hip can't be calibrated to maximum success (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:45 AM
You won’t be able to recalibrate
10:45
There has been like 4 years of this network. It never happens. Everyone has a vested interest in their own slice of the pie.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That was 100% the idea of HIP51 though, I think it's actually in there verbatim.
still holds true
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:46 AM
We had giant Hawaiians at Helium house because there was a HIP that moved 0.9% of the pie to the validators because the miners couldn’t construct challenges anymore (edited)
Avatar
That may be your opinion, but stop acting like HIP51/52/53 are something they're not just because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We had giant Hawaiians at Helium house because there was a HIP that moved 0.9% of the pie to the validators because the miners couldn’t construct challenges anymore (edited)
Hawaiians?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:48 AM
Yea, the biggest dudes I’ve ever seen in my life and I went to the steroidiest gym on Long Island when I was in college.
10:49
Like imagine the Rock but another 100 lbs
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That may be your opinion, but stop acting like HIP51/52/53 are something they're not just because it doesn't suit your narrative.
narrative? realize I am fighting against my own self interest here just FYI (at least short term) what suits my interest is to have gateways pay 10-40 dollars and keep 53
Avatar
yea body guards, i believe the main issue was all the ☠️ threats
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:50 AM
It wasn’t all because of the 0.9% but it was a factor
10:51
My thoughts on the proposal aside, any proposal planning on “recalibrating” in the future is a recipe for disaster. Just look at HIPs 15 and 17
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
My thoughts on the proposal aside, any proposal planning on “recalibrating” in the future is a recipe for disaster. Just look at HIPs 15 and 17
to be clear one point would be just have a sunset built in but I think that's hard to determine from here...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:59 AM
It’s just like why is the current system of using onboard burn to determine network size so broken that we need a convoluted fix for it?
Avatar
the reason formulas work to begin with is that you can enter any value for the variables and get a correct answer. if the equation generates anomaly results when you crank the variables to extremes, it’s not a formula any more, and is just a series of arbitrary numbers. proposing a temporary solution isn’t going to yield a temporary result. what is necessarily going to come of this discussion is a formula that works under stress tests, under extremes, and under deliberate manipulation. this needs to be bomb proof, and can not be revisited, i agree with max
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
What’s the current reasoning behind not just requiring Mobile to pay an onboarding fee with limited HNT until they do as pressure? (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:59 AM
Also sorry Gutentag because you keep getting notifications but can we please get his question answered?
👍 1
Avatar
the onboard burn variable would leave a huge 0 in the formula for mobile, they’ve paid none so far
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
the onboard burn variable would leave a huge 0 in the formula for mobile, they’ve paid none so far
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:00 AM
It would leave a 1 but yes
👌 1
Avatar
sry yea. still makes a huge impact that isn’t addressed without something changing
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
sry yea. still makes a huge impact that isn’t addressed without something changing
right it can not proceed as it is right now the gateways would need to pay something
Avatar
what if they simply integrated a retroactive onboard fee, and plan on taking 1% out of the next 100 days of rewards? or .5 out of the next 200, etc
💯 1
Avatar
thats my question though. why cant we let it be 1 and use that as a forcing function to resolve the issue?
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
what if they simply integrated a retroactive onboard fee, and plan on taking 1% out of the next 100 days of rewards? or .5 out of the next 200, etc
TBH i have no problem paying a fee even if 40$ per gateway so that would be 2200 for me
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
thats my question though. why cant we let it be 1 and use that as a forcing function to resolve the issue?
then I will simply propose a HIP that says we need to onboard gateways a second time for MOBILE and pay your 40$ and in 12-18 months most likely mobile will be 90+% of the network
11:07
but that also adds a small chance it doenst take off that quickly and you end up leaving money on the table
Avatar
that bit tracks. bring it up mostly as a result of the concern for/against special treatment of IOT, this feels a lot like special treatment for MOBILE to not require the onboarding fee prior to receiving rewards (edited)
Avatar
which leads me to reiterate the question what was the logic behind mobile miners not paying an onboarding fee to begin with? obvs implementing one now would delete that logic but it’d have to be explained for it to make sense why a variable in the formula for HNT delegation wasn’t taken into consideration with the genesis of Mobile
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
that bit tracks. bring it up mostly as a result of the concern for/against special treatment of IOT, this feels a lot like special treatment for MOBILE to not require the onboarding fee prior to receiving rewards (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:08 AM
Agreed. No special treatment for anyone
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
which leads me to reiterate the question what was the logic behind mobile miners not paying an onboarding fee to begin with? obvs implementing one now would delete that logic but it’d have to be explained for it to make sense why a variable in the formula for HNT delegation wasn’t taken into consideration with the genesis of Mobile
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:08 AM
It just kinda got overlooked
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
which leads me to reiterate the question what was the logic behind mobile miners not paying an onboarding fee to begin with? obvs implementing one now would delete that logic but it’d have to be explained for it to make sense why a variable in the formula for HNT delegation wasn’t taken into consideration with the genesis of Mobile
I think they just didn't build that function, I also think they thought that the IOT onboarding made sense as a "dual" onboarding
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
which leads me to reiterate the question what was the logic behind mobile miners not paying an onboarding fee to begin with? obvs implementing one now would delete that logic but it’d have to be explained for it to make sense why a variable in the formula for HNT delegation wasn’t taken into consideration with the genesis of Mobile
A purely implementational hurdle
11:10
The current L1 doesn't allow for double onboarding
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:10 AM
If I remember correctly when baicells started shipping radios there was no onboard fee. There was also no way to tie a radio to an onboard fee
Avatar
ah that makes sense. then with that in mind i dont see why post migration asking mobile miners to pay an additional fee in order to resume mining would be any problem. it’d create the onboard variable in earnest by the time the radios are all back online. i apologize if this is a child brained solution but often times simple is better.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think they just didn't build that function, I also think they thought that the IOT onboarding made sense as a "dual" onboarding
I’m curious now, is that the reason there’s a LoRaWAN radio in the freedomfi gateways to begin with? obvs anyone mining IOT who deploys a 5G unit is now mining with 2 IOT hotspots in their house, me for example.
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
I’m curious now, is that the reason there’s a LoRaWAN radio in the freedomfi gateways to begin with? obvs anyone mining IOT who deploys a 5G unit is now mining with 2 IOT hotspots in their house, me for example.
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:16 AM
The reason was because POC didn’t make sense for 5G so having a LoRa miner allowed the radios to earn POC
Avatar
to prevent it from being a potato for 18 months
😅 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:17 AM
February 2021 decision
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:18 AM
People were preordering FF gateways for $1,000 because Raks were selling for $2500 on eBay
👀 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Put in some unlimited Helium Mobile plans and you have the perfect storm of fake data
BTW the draft HIP by Boris and meowshka that would add Helium Mobile as a Helium MOBILE subDAO Service Provider (@gutentag you need to hit the title over the head with a capitalization stick) proposes that there is a cap of 30 GB rewardable data per eSIM. Meaning, Subscribers (Helium Mobile SIM owners) can use all the data they want if they have an unlimited plan, but only the first 30 GB/month each Subscriber uses per month over Helium 5G actually pays Hotspot operators, or gets charged to Nova. The rest is “free”. This is proposed as an anti-gaming measure. I got all hot and bothered when I read that, and thought it was unjust, and somebody is having a free lunch, but after thinking about it some more I actually find it much more reasonable. https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/ca7ff739dc53199f456367dbb41df75a2b4300d7/0000-helium-mobile-service-provider.md
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
🆙 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
BTW the draft HIP by Boris and meowshka that would add Helium Mobile as a Helium MOBILE subDAO Service Provider (@gutentag you need to hit the title over the head with a capitalization stick) proposes that there is a cap of 30 GB rewardable data per eSIM. Meaning, Subscribers (Helium Mobile SIM owners) can use all the data they want if they have an unlimited plan, but only the first 30 GB/month each Subscriber uses per month over Helium 5G actually pays Hotspot operators, or gets charged to Nova. The rest is “free”. This is proposed as an anti-gaming measure. I got all hot and bothered when I read that, and thought it was unjust, and somebody is having a free lunch, but after thinking about it some more I actually find it much more reasonable. https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/ca7ff739dc53199f456367dbb41df75a2b4300d7/0000-helium-mobile-service-provider.md
I don’t agree with that at all, it’s not the operators fault that a customer abuses data. It is up to Helium Mobile to do something about it. Essentially what is created here is free data for Helium Mobile and the user, and the operator gets to swallow the cost.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don’t agree with that at all, it’s not the operators fault that a customer abuses data. It is up to Helium Mobile to do something about it. Essentially what is created here is free data for Helium Mobile and the user, and the operator gets to swallow the cost.
I carry no stick in this fight. I’m just pointing out that approaches are being considered how it might be dealt with. Please take the pitchforks to #hip-discussion 😅
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don’t agree with that at all, it’s not the operators fault that a customer abuses data. It is up to Helium Mobile to do something about it. Essentially what is created here is free data for Helium Mobile and the user, and the operator gets to swallow the cost.
they should cap data transfer speeds, to something like 1 mbps then it would take 100+ phones to even make a dent...
Avatar
When it is your own radio it’s another story, but it isn’t really evident that will always be the case. If my neighbor gets Helium Mobile and abuses my radio why should I be punished for it?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
they should cap data transfer speeds, to something like 1 mbps then it would take 100+ phones to even make a dent...
For example, up to Helium Mobile to figure out but dumping it on the operator seems weak
Avatar
Avatar
groot
For example, up to Helium Mobile to figure out but dumping it on the operator seems weak
in my mind it is "fairer" to transforming the unlimited user into a monthly entity and then just divides its % of x mobile to the radios it used (edited)
Avatar
Please let’s not go into depth about that here. I’ll just say, nice problem to have unless you are paying for backhaul by the GB, or are congested, in which case, nice problem to have. But this hasn’t even been proposed for public discussion. So let’s take it to #hip-discussion if there’s more to be said. 😉
12:13
BTW can I please ask everybody to stand up and clap, I’m getting my 1000/300 Mbit/s consumer fiber optic connection here in Frankfurt in two weeks. (edited)
Avatar
Why isn’t it symmetric
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Please let’s not go into depth about that here. I’ll just say, nice problem to have unless you are paying for backhaul by the GB, or are congested, in which case, nice problem to have. But this hasn’t even been proposed for public discussion. So let’s take it to #hip-discussion if there’s more to be said. 😉
agreed, I am just giving my 2 cents and trying to make sure there are no bad outcomes here for both IOT and MOBILE mobile will be almost zero for at least the first few weeks also assuming there are no hold ups to helium mobile launch. but also this makes sure roughly 12.5% of the pie is guaranteed to IOT for the foreseeable future
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
BTW can I please ask everybody to stand up and clap, I’m getting my 1000/300 Mbit/s consumer fiber optic connection here in Frankfurt in two weeks. (edited)
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/04/2023 12:15 PM
Why 300 downstream?
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
I did think of having the 50 number change to 53 and then drop by 1 every 1st of the month so that by Aug 1 2027 halving its 1 with all the others. I hate numbers falling off cliffs, I'd rather linear declines or even squrt/exponential. (edited)
Let me just say to that that I think it’s too complicated, and it was intentional that the end of the HIP-80 IOT founder’s benefit period falls on a halvening, 1 Aug 2027. Double chop to the neck if IOT still hasn’t started moving data.
hnt_spin 1
Avatar
and every sub DAO addition should be viewed as a stock acquisition
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Why 300 downstream?
300 is upstream. 🙃 That’s all I could get for 70 €/month. If you can get me more, I’ll send fancy chocolates.
👀 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
300 is upstream. 🙃 That’s all I could get for 70 €/month. If you can get me more, I’ll send fancy chocolates.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/04/2023 12:20 PM
Move to NL, we get 1 Gbit down and up here.
Avatar
And stroopwafels which everyone knows is better than chocolate anyway 🤫
💯 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 12:24 PM
You ever have someone fly stroopwafels all the way to New York only to hand them to the person you are having a conversation with?
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Move to NL, we get 1 Gbit down and up here.
Coming to Amsterdam early June for Micromobility Europe. Already thrilled. Still would never leave Frankfurt, world’s smallest metropolis after Helsinki and place 7 on the Economist’s world’s most liveable cities. Amsterdam is way down the list at place 9. (I’d never offer Dumpling_girl stroopwafels, I’m not qualified.)
Avatar
Sounds like a good person to be friendly with
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You ever have someone fly stroopwafels all the way to New York only to hand them to the person you are having a conversation with?
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/04/2023 12:25 PM
You jelly?
😂 1
12:25
He mad he didn't get any.
12:26
I didn't know him then 🤷‍♀️
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Coming to Amsterdam early June for Micromobility Europe. Already thrilled. Still would never leave Frankfurt, world’s smallest metropolis after Helsinki and place 7 on the Economist’s world’s most liveable cities. Amsterdam is way down the list at place 9. (I’d never offer Dumpling_girl stroopwafels, I’m not qualified.)
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/04/2023 12:26 PM
Amsterdam is not all that great for living. Quite expensive city.
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Amsterdam is not all that great for living. Quite expensive city.
It looks very nice if you’re a tourist.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It looks very nice if you’re a tourist.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/04/2023 12:30 PM
Yup, but a lot has changed. Lived there for almost 20 years. Still miss the city.
Avatar
https://youtu.be/ee4oYYG4CWc also here is the call from earlier this morning
👍 2
💪 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
https://youtu.be/ee4oYYG4CWc also here is the call from earlier this morning
i can give you access to craigbot if thats helpful as well
👍 1
Avatar
couldnt hurt
Avatar
crackcraigbot, what a name 🤭 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
crackcraigbot, what a name 🤭 (edited)
should have called it peeping tom
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
couldnt hurt
what method are you using?
Avatar
OBS is a free screen recoding software
Avatar
ah, obs got it
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
ah, obs got it
Goal tender 04/04/2023 2:53 PM
Hi Keenan, this might be a better question for Waveform, is there a set amount of Vehnt or is it unlimited. I am asking like what if every single token holder chose to stake. Would there be enough Vehnt,
Avatar
Avatar
Goal tender
Hi Keenan, this might be a better question for Waveform, is there a set amount of Vehnt or is it unlimited. I am asking like what if every single token holder chose to stake. Would there be enough Vehnt,
it is just a number related to the modifier you get from staking VeHNT
👆 1
15:17
so yes there is a theoretical limit
Avatar
Avatar
Goal tender
Hi Keenan, this might be a better question for Waveform, is there a set amount of Vehnt or is it unlimited. I am asking like what if every single token holder chose to stake. Would there be enough Vehnt,
There is no limit on veHNT as such. It’s a (temporary) medal you get for locking your HNT. If everyone locked all their HNT for the maximum duration of 48 months, there would be 100x the circulating supply of HNT = 14.2B veHNT. Of course, since HNT can’t be or burned to DC or transferred while it’s locked, and people would have to start cooldown on their HNT and then wait 48 months before their HNT would unlock, we can expect that far less than the total circulating supply of HNT will be locked. Nobody knows, but it might be somthing on the order of 10–30% locked, and not all of that locked for the full 48 months.
Avatar
But I would like to have one more go and get some sort of temp check for where people feel things are at everyone want to go to government voice in about 2hrs so 830 EDT?
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
But I would like to have one more go and get some sort of temp check for where people feel things are at everyone want to go to government voice in about 2hrs so 830 EDT?
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 4:28 PM
No I’m going to the Astros game. It’s very clearly not ready for a vote.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
But I would like to have one more go and get some sort of temp check for where people feel things are at everyone want to go to government voice in about 2hrs so 830 EDT?
do it up
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
do it up
hanging in the gov channel anyone want to chime in not sure who to ping all
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/04/2023 5:42 PM
Just spotted, https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/20dcfcf4c30ab236c244b2317e57181994a7f9e8/00xx-minimum-onboarding-fee.md This is to break the onboarding fee out of this HIP? I like. Would suggest including ferebee as a coauthor? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
Just spotted, https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/20dcfcf4c30ab236c244b2317e57181994a7f9e8/00xx-minimum-onboarding-fee.md This is to break the onboarding fee out of this HIP? I like. Would suggest including ferebee as a coauthor? (edited)
I saw that but again in my mind the thing we need to fix is the scoring method and basically by tomorrow? do we all agree on this?
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/04/2023 5:47 PM
I haven't been able to listen to the HIP 80 call in full, that may very well be the case.
Avatar
did you see the tables I put above and the "reserve" I am proposing as a guardrail that I think solves both the immediate problem and future problems albeit not in a programmatic way (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
I haven't been able to listen to the HIP 80 call in full, that may very well be the case.
also who is in charge of what is happening with E-sims after migration meaning will they be turned back on day one or are there some stuff that is known to need to be fixed first
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/04/2023 5:50 PM
way o/t for this channel but yes the plan is to bring those back up post-migration
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
way o/t for this channel but yes the plan is to bring those back up post-migration
well it just goes into my fear that we are expecting mobile to have large data and as this is the only way to move data on mobile till helium mobile launches its vital to understand what the short term is going to look like otherwise we might have a situation where mobile is only getting >5% of emissions which would be very problematic
17:54
because even in @ferebee calculations he shows $1000 of data a day which will literally be 0 if the foundation sims don't launch on the 19th... (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
way o/t for this channel but yes the plan is to bring those back up post-migration
this is what happens if hip 80 goes ahead as planned with 0 in the mobile data slot...
18:22
and it will be this way until either the e-sims restart or helium mobile launches...
18:29
in my opinion this will stunt growth in mobile if this happens for a prolonged period of time (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Great job today on the AMA. A few comments I want to address. -) Philosophically, I am on board with protecting the IoT network, and having a floor for the IoT D score is reasonable. My concern remains, how much protection do we give? -) Arbitrarily setting a floor of 50 to yield a fictitious data credit run rate equivalent to $75,000/month or $900,000 per year or $3.6 Million dollars over 4 years is frankly too generous and potentially detrimental to Mobile. And to say that if Mobile can’t immediately reach a run rate of $1M per year in data credit burn then the whole project fails, is, . . . respectfully, short sighted. There are likely more variables. The price of Verizon or AT&T unlimited talk/ data plan is $41-$50/month. If Mobile offers unlimited talk/data plans for $35/month, will that $35 all go towards HNT burn for data credits at 50 cents/gig? No. T-Mobile will have to get paid a hefty chunk first. Google queries suggest that VMNO margins are in the range of 20%. Welp that’s $7/month per customer for Nova. How much goes through the Helium network? If it’s all of the $7 in profit margin, that’s not that much in DC spend. If the 30 GB cap is indicative of what will ne seen from mobile subsceibers, that's $15/month per unlimited data subscriber. So that means Nova needs ~ anywhere between 5,000 - 11,000 subscribers right off the bat? I wonder how many have signed up for the waiting list. Arbitrarily gifting IoT $3.6 Million in data credit use is just too generous. Let’s set the IoT floor D calculation method from a metric that gives credit for $25,000/month. If the IoT subNetwork wants more profitability, we can charge more USD per data credit through governance right? -) Asking for modeled data to challenge an arbitrarily set number like a floor of 50 for IoT network, is faulty. The challenge is philosophical. “I support the IoT network, but not THAT much.” Not at the expense of the mobile network which has the ability to really move data and burn HNT. Let’s compromise and protect IoT with $25,000/month in DC burn credit, and leave the remaining features of HIP80 as is. From my perspective, all that needs to change is the Floor. (edited)
18:56
Turn the knob, dial, or whatever you said you were willing to turn @ferebee 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
Just spotted, https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/20dcfcf4c30ab236c244b2317e57181994a7f9e8/00xx-minimum-onboarding-fee.md This is to break the onboarding fee out of this HIP? I like. Would suggest including ferebee as a coauthor? (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 7:38 PM
The authors respectfully decline that request at this time.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
in my opinion this will stunt growth in mobile if this happens for a prolonged period of time (edited)
Joey 0x00003C 04/04/2023 7:54 PM
Ah yea ok, not o/t. esim service is just blocked on infra tied to migration. data being accounted for correctly but rewarded incorrectly on current infra. it'll be a fast follow (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The authors respectfully decline that request at this time.
Joey 0x00003C 04/04/2023 7:54 PM
damn cold
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
damn cold
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 7:59 PM
Philosophical differences between HIPs being built in public vs in private group chats. We’re happy to have him part of the conversation in the HIP channel.
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/04/2023 7:59 PM
You'll win my vote if you call them "Protocol Networks" or something (/s)
Avatar
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C
You'll win my vote if you call them "Protocol Networks" or something (/s)
done
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
But I would like to have one more go and get some sort of temp check for where people feel things are at everyone want to go to government voice in about 2hrs so 830 EDT?
This might surprise you but not everyone lives in your timezone
Avatar
Avatar
groot
This might surprise you but not everyone lives in your timezone
sure i think there are still a view meetings that will need to happen not wanting to exclude but I just offered a time to talk
Avatar
worse enough the ama wasn’t announced but to try to get a temp check at 2h notice, not cool
Avatar
Avatar
groot
worse enough the ama wasn’t announced but to try to get a temp check at 2h notice, not cool
thats not really the term i should have used (edited)
Avatar
this is my 05:30 mind speaking so don’t expect much nuance 🫠
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 8:48 PM
What meetings? If a HIP is so complicated that you need to have multiple meetings and group chats to determine how to count onboards it’s probably too complicated and is doing way too much
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What meetings? If a HIP is so complicated that you need to have multiple meetings and group chats to determine how to count onboards it’s probably too complicated and is doing way too much
sorry I am relating how my companies function we have several "mini" meetings then data and response etc. is how our work flow goes I was hoping for 1 more tonight and one tomorrow
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
sorry I am relating how my companies function we have several "mini" meetings then data and response etc. is how our work flow goes I was hoping for 1 more tonight and one tomorrow
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 8:51 PM
Oh shit, you have a company? Well in that case, never mind, let’s have more meetings
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh shit, you have a company? Well in that case, never mind, let’s have more meetings
glad you agree 😉
coolcry 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 8:53 PM
I’m just a crypto degen, wouldn’t know anything about that. I just YOLO’d into FOMO
Avatar
Avatar
groot
this is my 05:30 mind speaking so don’t expect much nuance 🫠
no worries, I guess it was more of a straw poll wondering where people are at
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
no worries, I guess it was more of a straw poll wondering where people are at
where some people that happened to share your timezone and secret little group are at*
Avatar
Avatar
groot
where some people that happened to share your timezone and secret little group are at*
secret group?
🤷‍♂️ 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 8:57 PM
Well it wouldn’t be much of a secret if we told you, now would it?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
secret group?
nothing changed so the talk must’ve been somewhere else
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
in my opinion this will stunt growth in mobile if this happens for a prolonged period of time (edited)
Stunt the growth by something that has always known to be the case? That’s like jumping in the ocean and complaining you get wet
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Stunt the growth by something that has always known to be the case? That’s like jumping in the ocean and complaining you get wet
Not sure what you mean? But if we go past solana merge and a few weeks go by like this it will be a problem
Avatar
Avatar
groot
nothing changed so the talk must’ve been somewhere else
Nobody high up attended so you didn't miss much I'm just trying to push the ball forward because as it sits things will become problematic.
Avatar
I mean that it was always clear that MOBILE’s split would be low unless data starts moving, so why would it be a problem?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Nobody high up attended so you didn't miss much I'm just trying to push the ball forward because as it sits things will become problematic.
I don’t think we have high and low people here, that’s a fake construct
Avatar
I can just say there are large groups who need to see the trend up and this IMO would be large negative burning people further causing damage
Avatar
At the end of the day we’re in this together
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I can just say there are large groups who need to see the trend up and this IMO would be large negative burning people further causing damage
The same can be said for other groups in this zero sum game
Avatar
Avatar
groot
At the end of the day we’re in this together
Agreed
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The same can be said for other groups in this zero sum game
But mu diagnosis is that mobile is going to be the backbone for all of helium in both models 80 and 51 mobile will most like crush IOT in the 12-24month time frame even with the 75k advatage I just hope that's long enough to get the off the ground and keep IOT running
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 04/04/2023 9:34 PM
Mining under the Genesis phase has started. MOBILE cannot be redeemed for HNT until HIP51 Phase 2 and the introduction of the MOBILE Treasury which will be ~Q1 2023.
Avatar
I’m glad you’re so optimistic with MOBILE and pessimistic with IOT, regardless, if that’s the case then why do we need to help it now?
Avatar
But apply hip 80 as it is and mobile growth might take an extra 6 to 12 months because we might see a route not saying it will happen just significantly increased chances which would cost the total network 10-100m $
Avatar
Unpopular opinion, but if at some point in the future iot doesn’t start holding its own it is pretty normal that it gets less of the split. Subsidizing something that doesn’t provide revenue has to end somewhere
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
But apply hip 80 as it is and mobile growth might take an extra 6 to 12 months because we might see a route not saying it will happen just significantly increased chances which would cost the total network 10-100m $
Baseless assumptions
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Unpopular opinion, but if at some point in the future iot doesn’t start holding its own it is pretty normal that it gets less of the split. Subsidizing something that doesn’t provide revenue has to end somewhere
Right I think there needs to be a sunset in my proposal just unsure what the right number is I personally see 24 months but could be more or less or staggered in somenway
Avatar
You’re obviously in this for MOBILE and that’s fine, but I think you’re overestimating your perceived losses
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Baseless assumptions
Did we not all just witness what happened to HNT when it got delighted those were baseless assumptions if a large enough chunk panics like what just happened 2 weeks ago we could hinder mobiles progress hence why I am willing to trade short term take off vs long term guarantee.
21:42
There is also another term I would look into and its known as opertunity cost
Avatar
Basing your economic model on short term thinking is a recipe for failure
21:44
You’re willing to stab iot in the back to get mobile off the ground with ‘otherwise mobile growths slows’ as a reason.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Basing your economic model on short term thinking is a recipe for failure
I am looking at the long term here in we need to be aimed in the right direction so I feel there needs to be guardrails to get us there rather than spray and pray
Avatar
All I hear is that if mobile doesn’t get a big slice like yesterday it will be like delisting and what not so I don’t see how that’s long term thinking
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You’re obviously in this for MOBILE and that’s fine, but I think you’re overestimating your perceived losses
Yes I always try to check my bias in the end I want both IOT and MOBIlE to win I think that it requires IOT to go through some delayed gratification because just 2% of the US mobile market is worth more than 100% world IOT
Avatar
[citation needed]
Avatar
Avatar
groot
All I hear is that if mobile doesn’t get a big slice like yesterday it will be like delisting and what not so I don’t see how that’s long term thinking
This has to do with momentum right now it is trending flat to slightly negative
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
This has to do with momentum right now it is trending flat to slightly negative
Adhoc decision making might work in your business but changing the economic structure of the subDAOs every time a subDAO needs it is unsustainable (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:49 PM
The radios aren’t good. You are overly bullish on CBRS DeWi.
Avatar
If tomorrow the iot network shrinks should we just reallocate everything to iot?
21:51
If the answer to that is no then there is no reason to do it now either
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:51 PM
Neutral hosts operate with SLAs and contracted terms based on location and uptime. Helium Mobile (the MVNO) was created because no one wants to operate in a model that Helium allows.
21:52
There’s also a huge legal question of who is selling the service that is mobile data.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The radios aren’t good. You are overly bullish on CBRS DeWi.
To some degree you are right elmo made this point, but the argument isn't in the stats of the radios it in the cost to performance ratio we operate somewhere near 5 to 1 advantage
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:52 PM
Source?
21:53
What does Boingo charge MNOs per gig?
Avatar
I did the math long time ago I have posted it several times ill try to look up but the basics of the math are simple the cost of area and the fact we can go after only the low hanging fruit like highly populated areas etc
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:55 PM
You can’t have both a robust network with redundancy and dirt cheap data. What happens when ISPs don’t want their bandwidth rebroadcast without charging you for the right to do that?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If tomorrow the iot network shrinks should we just reallocate everything to iot?
I'm asking for 12.5% that's not everything
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You can’t have both a robust network with redundancy and dirt cheap data. What happens when ISPs don’t want their bandwidth rebroadcast without charging you for the right to do that?
As soon as they pull that trigger they will get sued most likely and what they are doing with there modems will probably get more scrutiny as well...
21:57
Also if you get business line connections it doesn't include that language in most cases
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:58 PM
So how many gigs of data do I need to have of offload to pay off hardware and the added monthly cost of a business line?
21:58
Then what happens if my neighbor does it too and splits that data transfer with me too
Avatar
My business line avg 150 with more standard one prob averaging 100 so about 100 gigs a month +/-
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 9:59 PM
For a WISP to set up a radio their COGs is about 25-30 cents per gig. Not much margin there
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I'm asking for 12.5% that's not everything
Nice dodge of the question, not what I asked
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:00 PM
Like let’s not start doing a bunch of ad hoc stuff for a network that has a very very low likelihood of success (edited)
Avatar
That’s my point, what is happening here is that we’re trying to curve fit the economic model to some predetermined point of ‘good’
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Like let’s not start doing a bunch of ad hoc stuff for a network that has a very very low likelihood of success (edited)
22:05
I have a couple of versions of this...
Avatar
We can’t keep making ad hoc changes to the curve to make a subDAO happy. It needs to have a basis that works along the line
Avatar
Well what I'm saying is we need to get rid of possible bad scenarios this solves that where I haven't seen both 80 and 51 do that
Avatar
You want to change the economic model of all subDAO’s by curve fitting to your predetermined point of 12.5 because you think that is justified and required for the growth of said subDAO, I call that ad hoc.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:06 PM
Can we just take a step back and define what we think as hoc means because I think we’re using different definitions
Avatar
By possibly creating 9000 new bad scenarios that arise from curve fitting to this one?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You want to change the economic model of all subDAO’s by curve fitting to your predetermined point of 12.5 because you think that is justified and required for the growth of said subDAO, I call that ad hoc.
I view it as equal protection I tried several numbers and 25% seemed best open for debate though
Avatar
How do you add subDAO no 3 to your curve fitted model?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can we just take a step back and define what we think as hoc means because I think we’re using different definitions
I think of this task in front of us as inserting an unknown mass into orbit of other unknown mass objects (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:10 PM
Well you certainly don’t lack confidence
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
How do you add subDAO no 3 to your curve fitted model?
Well I would view it like any stock purchase it would need to be negotiated and this part is the key and very much open to future debate when number 3,4 etc arrive each one will need its own calculations and UBI assessment just like venture capital does (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:18 PM
Tell me you were around for HIP-37 without telling me you weren’t around for HIP-37
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Well I would view it like any stock purchase it would need to be negotiated and this part is the key and very much open to future debate when number 3,4 etc arrive each one will need its own calculations and UBI assessment just like venture capital does (edited)
so this is about the definition of ad hoc
22:22
basically what you're saying is that we will have to remodel everything and figure out on a case-by-case basis what we're going to do?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:22 PM
Sounds scalable
Avatar
Avatar
groot
so this is about the definition of ad hoc
I'm sorry but if you think you can algorithmicly create a self centering sub DAO absorption model ill just shut up now...
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I'm sorry but if you think you can algorithmicly create a self centering sub DAO absorption model ill just shut up now...
i think that is what HIP51 was all about, creating a framework that allows subDAOs to join Helium without needing to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
i think that is what HIP51 was all about, creating a framework that allows subDAOs to join Helium without needing to decide on a case-by-case basis.
I didn't agree with hip 51 to begin with its attempt to do what is happening IMO is folly and almost would always result in failure or at best slow growth
Avatar
The majority disagreed with you
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:28 PM
So basically you’re smarter than Tushar, Shayon and 96.64% of the voters and would like to use the time crunch of the migration to try to repeal an overwhelmingly popular HIP before it can be implemented? (edited)
Avatar
Case-by-case decision making on the economic model isn't going to work out well. On the one hand we have a 'we must make this decision now because people won't like veHNT distribution change under them', on the other hand that's coming from someone that thinks case-by-case decision making is the way forward here implicitly guaranteeing that things will be overturned every time it is convenient.
Avatar
Sure I wasn't in the position I am in now to speak knowledgably, but now I understand but If hip 51 stays as is it will create some likely scenarios that will severely hurt IOT
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:29 PM
And your argument is that we can trust people to act in the best interest of HNT as you simultaneously are acting in what you feel is the best interest of MOBILE
Avatar
And will not incentivize new subDAO's to join or grow
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Sure I wasn't in the position I am in now to speak knowledgably, but now I understand but If hip 51 stays as is it will create some likely scenarios that will severely hurt IOT
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:30 PM
In HNT terms or dollar terms?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
In HNT terms or dollar terms?
No just knowledge and experience dive also to take in market conditions
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:31 PM
I meant in how it was severely hurts IOT (edited)
Avatar
So are you familiar with the sinking ship analogy?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
So are you familiar with the sinking ship analogy?
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:35 PM
Yes, the Titanic only had enough lifeboats for 12.5% of the passengers and we all saw how that worked out.
Avatar
just to make it perfectly clear: you are suggesting we change the dao utility score to match some curve you have determined is 'correct' and will need to change it again as soon as other subDAOs come along, markets change or subDAO needs change?
Avatar
What decision(s) do we need make?
Avatar
If a ship starts sinking on one side it can cause a chain reaction to make the ship capsize
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:38 PM
But that doesn’t make sense in this scenario
Avatar
and making rash ad hoc reactions make you overshoot to the other side
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:39 PM
You mistake HNT for a currency
Avatar
Avatar
groot
just to make it perfectly clear: you are suggesting we change the dao utility score to match some curve you have determined is 'correct' and will need to change it again as soon as other subDAOs come along, markets change or subDAO needs change?
@gateholder this is what you’re proposing right? Algorithms are stupid and we need to figure it out on the go?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:40 PM
It’s an instrument that allows you to redeem currency (DC)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
and making rash ad hoc reactions make you overshoot to the other side
This is not rash, rushed maybe also attempting not to start from scratch in the 11th hour
Avatar
Avatar
groot
@gateholder this is what you’re proposing right? Algorithms are stupid and we need to figure it out on the go?
Are you familiar with ssto?
Avatar
Does it answer my question?
Avatar
I mean I hope
Avatar
Don’t see why you feel the need to speak in riddles to avoid answering simple questions
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Don’t see why you feel the need to speak in riddles to avoid answering simple questions
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:44 PM
SSTO to the moon though
Avatar
This channel keeps talking in circles and not getting anywhere. Am I correct we have to decide between: 1. HIP 80 as is or not. If not, then the issues are... 2a. floor or no floor 2b. if floor, how much 3. all onboarding fees counted or not 4. include device count or not
Avatar
Single stage to orbit, long been the dream of rockets but in reality they just don't work
22:45
I speak in analogies not riddles 😉
Avatar
So your answer is “yes, I want ad hoc decision making on the go”
22:45
Just say so and stop beating around the bush
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
This channel keeps talking in circles and not getting anywhere. Am I correct we have to decide between: 1. HIP 80 as is or not. If not, then the issues are... 2a. floor or no floor 2b. if floor, how much 3. all onboarding fees counted or not 4. include device count or not
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:46 PM
There are two proposed HIPs that accomplish 2-4 without totally overhauling everything 14 days before the migration date
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So your answer is “yes, I want ad hoc decision making on the go”
What I am saying is there has to be at least a 2 stage approach one part that is rigid enough to interact with and one smaller part that is flexable to accomplish Numerous different tasks (subDAO's) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
What’s the current reasoning behind not just requiring Mobile to pay an onboarding fee with limited HNT until they do as pressure? (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:48 PM
Has this been answered yet? Feels like an important question.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Has this been answered yet? Feels like an important question.
Diffusion of responsibility is the issue if we need everyone to pay on their own so that the entire subDAO gets its just rewards. It won't get done.
22:50
Starting April 19th, no rewards if you don't re-onboard your gateway. Simple and easy peasy. Everyone will pay within a week.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:50 PM
Or they won’t and they’ll face the consequences of their actions
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
What I am saying is there has to be at least a 2 stage approach one part that is rigid enough to interact with and one smaller part that is flexable to accomplish Numerous different tasks (subDAO's) (edited)
Until there have to be 3 stages, and then 4, and then 5. What you're creating is an economic model no one will want to be a part of because it may change on them at the whim of some guy with some radios.
Avatar
Network should know I already did my CPI and just ask me for my $40 in HNT payment.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Or they won’t and they’ll face the consequences of their actions
If the consequences are only applied to the subDAO (we don't earn as much HNT) then few will pay.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:52 PM
I also want to point out this dire HIP that “absolutely must pass before migration” was proposed two days after the announced migration date
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
If the consequences are only applied to the subDAO (we don't earn as much HNT) then few will pay.
the consequences will be no rewards if we go by the proposed HIP
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Or they won’t and they’ll face the consequences of their actions
If consequences to the gateway (no rewards for you), then most will pay before April 19th and the rest shortly thereafter. I was figuring we can't allow payment until after migration, but if we can do so tomorrow then why are we still discussing anything.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
the consequences will be no rewards if we go by the proposed HIP
No rewards for the subDAO or no rewards for the gateway owner?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
No rewards for the subDAO or no rewards for the gateway owner?
the subDAO will get rewarded based on the utility score, the gateway will get nothing
Avatar
Avatar
groot
the subDAO will get rewarded based on the utility score, the gateway will get nothing
Perfect. Why are we talking in circles then? Is there a mechanism for me to pay my fee? I can have this done before I go to sleep this evening.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:55 PM
The subDAO will get slashed if it rewards radios in MOBILE without being onboarded
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The subDAO will get slashed if it rewards radios in MOBILE without being onboarded
This allows for freeloading. That won't work. No rewards to a gateway, you don't want to pay? Fine and dandy. Your loss.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:56 PM
We’re talking in circles because if we don’t talk then the false assumption of “no one is dissenting anymore so we can rush this through” is applied to this HIP
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
This allows for freeloading. That won't work. No rewards to a gateway, you don't want to pay? Fine and dandy. Your loss.
How does it allow for freeloading?
22:57
The gateway doesn't get paid, if the subDAO does pay the gateway anyway we slash the entire subDAO so it hurts everyone in that subDAO. It will then be up to the subDAO governance to stop it.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
How does it allow for freeloading?
If the consequences only apply to the subDAO as a whole, then lots of folks will not get around to paying. And there will be a percentage of people that wont ever pay.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
This allows for freeloading. That won't work. No rewards to a gateway, you don't want to pay? Fine and dandy. Your loss.
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:57 PM
The subDAO would be bound under the rules to not reward those that haven’t paid and will be penalized via slashing if they reward the radios that haven’t been onboarded
Avatar
Those are secondary consequences if the subDAO doesn't abide by the rules
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Those are secondary consequences if the subDAO doesn't abide by the rules
You won't be able to get every wallet to pay.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:58 PM
Then they won’t get more mobile.
Avatar
If gateways on board and we go with hip 51 iot will have significant chances of getting crushed in medium range
Avatar
If the punishment applies to the gateway, then people will pay. If they don't pay, it is only them suffers.
Avatar
The punishment is no rewards for the gateway
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
If gateways on board and we go with hip 51 iot will have significant chances of getting crushed in medium range
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:59 PM
Noted. Appreciate your input.
Avatar
The slashing is in case of a rogue subDAO who rewards anyway
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The punishment is no rewards for the gateway
I wholeheartedly agree.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 10:59 PM
I think it’s very likely radios will opt to not onboard.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The slashing is in case of a rogue subDAO who rewards anyway
Sure. But this is not enough to get everyone to pay their re-onboarding fee if you don't affect their own personal rewards.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:00 PM
The subDAO handles that piece
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think it’s very likely radios will opt to not onboard.
But it only hurts their own rewards, so who gives a shit? (edited)
23:00
Screw yourself over is a fine enough policy to me. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
But it only hurts their own rewards, so who gives a shit? (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:01 PM
Exactly. Just saying it’ll happen. Thats an acceptable side effect of requiring onboarding
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Exactly. Just saying it’ll happen. Thats an acceptable side effect of requiring onboarding
I care not.
23:01
Pay or no rewards.
23:02
No rewards starts April 19th.
23:02
No need for HIP 80.
23:02
Max go ask the Foundation if they will pay for everyone at $40 a pop.
23:02
If they offer $20 a pop, take it.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:03 PM
just means more rewards for those that pay
Avatar
Indeed.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:03 PM
everyone will be onboard soon enough
Avatar
Indeed.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:03 PM
it's what I proposed before no?
Avatar
Is the mechanism for re-onboarding built?
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:05 PM
we just need a mechanism to take payment
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
we just need a mechanism to take payment
Seems easy enough to add to the new dashboard that was released earlier today.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:05 PM
Really think we need to just tie an NFT to each radio and “mint” that NFT for the onboarding fee
Avatar
I don't think there is a mechanism on this L1 but I think we have some options available (e.g. burn tokens to some address, if you did you get your nft if you don't you won't)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:06 PM
Idk if that works or if it’s difficult to pull off (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Really think we need to just tie an NFT to each radio and “mint” that NFT for the onboarding fee
Stop it Max. We will attend to that idea April 21st.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Really think we need to just tie an NFT to each radio and “mint” that NFT for the onboarding fee
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:06 PM
I think we can work on that after migration
23:06
for now, stick with hip51 and get it done before migration
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:06 PM
Oh yea of course. I know a guy who has already done that exact thing on solana
23:07
Just saying, it’s doable and a much easier solution than undoing everything
Avatar
So after you call the Foundation to ask for $40 a pop, talk to whomever it is that needs to add the re-onboarding payment mechanism. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:08 PM
My bestest buddy Sri. Might wanna have someone else reach out to him
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:08 PM
I think getting some onboarding done before migration is important, after migration we can propose hips within the mobile subdao and vote among mobile holders (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
So after you call the Foundation to ask for $40 a pop, talk to whomever it is that needs to add the re-onboarding payment mechanism. (edited)
I don't think the Fdn is the one that should pay
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
I think getting some onboarding done before migration is important, after migration we can propose hips within the mobile subdao and vote among mobile holders (edited)
That would be lovely, but it really does seem easier to do after April 18th.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:10 PM
We had a falling out after I told him his incentive model was shitty then publicly proved my point up until his felon boss decided to pull the rug. Haven’t spoken to him since.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't think the Fdn is the one that should pay
Neither do I. But the myth is that they might. Max claims they offered. Max can spend the 15 minutes asking. If he is right and it works, then he is a fucking hero. Regardless of how much they pitch in towards the $40.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
So after you call the Foundation to ask for $40 a pop, talk to whomever it is that needs to add the re-onboarding payment mechanism. (edited)
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:10 PM
I doubt we can get anyone to pay, it's up to us. I don't mind if me and Keith are the only ones paid lol
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:10 PM
April 19 is probably an aggressive date FWIW, Keith
23:10
Gateholder said he’d pay
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
April 19 is probably an aggressive date FWIW, Keith
I love that we are negotiating on that fact. (edited)
23:11
Pick a date. I will probably agree to it.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Neither do I. But the myth is that they might. Max claims they offered. Max can spend the 15 minutes asking. If he is right and it works, then he is a fucking hero. Regardless of how much they pitch in towards the $40.
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:11 PM
I didn’t say foundation would pay
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Gateholder said he’d pay
I did and I will but will always take a discount...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:12 PM
Onboard 9 radios, get one free?
Avatar
If you want to ask a third party to pay for you I think Nova/FreemdomFi is the more logical choice
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:14 PM
Do we know if the MOC approved baicells or what the HIP-19 process was for radios?
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:14 PM
if they can't get some kind of onboarding mechanism built, then I suggest we do the dumb way and just pay to a wallet and write down the gateway serial number and transaction hash. it would be pretty stupid to ask us to pay and not give us a way to do so and hurt the mobile subdao before migration.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I didn’t say foundation would pay
This: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1091413774499586090 Close enough. This is probably the same myth I thought was true.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:15 PM
Oh yea I didn’t say they’d be the ones paying thought
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Do we know if the MOC approved baicells or what the HIP-19 process was for radios?
There was a note on limiting the available radio makers in the email sent out about dual mining, so sort of
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If you want to ask a third party to pay for you I think Nova/FreemdomFi is the more logical choice
If you know the number to call, let Max know so that it can be his second call. 🙂
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:16 PM
all we have to go on is hip51, i say we just abide by it and have the owners pay up and get this shit over with
💯 2
👆 1
✅ 1
🤘 1
🙏 1
🎉 1
💲 1
4️⃣ 1
0️⃣ 1
Avatar
Since we think April 19th is too soon. Next bid is May 1.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:16 PM
Just don’t give Keith the number, they’ll kick him out
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Just don’t give Keith the number, they’ll kick him out
I was thinking about making this joke 😂
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Just don’t give Keith the number, they’ll kick him out
I finally met both at the San Francisco Helium Mobile meetup! No security guards intervened.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:17 PM
The best was when Keith found out in Miami who kicked him out
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
That would be lovely, but it really does seem easier to do after April 18th.
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:23 PM
you want to deal with this after migration not before?
Avatar
You know how we vote and how I always post those graphs with how many gateways etc? We can just do that
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
you want to deal with this after migration not before?
Yes. I want only mobile people to vote on 'radios rather than gateways' (edited)
Avatar
Oh radio vs gateway voting? That should probably be done by MOBILE holders and not HNT
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Yes. I want only mobile people to vote on 'radios rather than gateways' (edited)
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:34 PM
that voting by Mobile holders can't be done until after migration. but i think we can still pay for gateways in time for migration and we should
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
Let me rephrase: the vote about whether we onboard gateways or radios; that should probably be done by MOBILE holders
💯 1
👆 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:35 PM
even if there isn't a mechanism, we should figure out a way to collect the funds and send it to foundation for burn to count for protocol score
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
even if there isn't a mechanism, we should figure out a way to collect the funds and send it to foundation for burn to count for protocol score
too messy. Good idea, but it won't work.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:35 PM
and i think it's bullshit if they say that they can't do it before migration, because it is based on hip51 which was passed long ago
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
even if there isn't a mechanism, we should figure out a way to collect the funds and send it to foundation for burn to count for protocol score
For gateways you mean?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
For gateways you mean?
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:35 PM
yes, based on hip51, $40 per gateway onboarding
Avatar
There is the reason to wait! If we wait until May something, then maybe we can get a MIP passed beforehand and just mint NFTs for radios and pay for that and get two birds (maybe three) with one stone. (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:37 PM
we can still do that, and just have those that paid for onboarding fee count toward the radio as well when the new MIP is passed. (edited)
Avatar
You can burn arbitrary amounts so if the wallet that owns gateway X has made a burn transaction of $40 to wallet Y before migration you get your NFT you get rewards, else you don't. Upon transition we forget to copy the wallet Y so it's gone forever.
23:37
This is technically possible and equivalent to native burn
Avatar
to Max's point...seems we should each voice the opinion (assuming it is what it is) that you do not want HIP80 to go to vote.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You can burn arbitrary amounts so if the wallet that owns gateway X has made a burn transaction of $40 to wallet Y before migration you get your NFT you get rewards, else you don't. Upon transition we forget to copy the wallet Y so it's gone forever.
Do we have Backpack integrated enough to distribute NFTs out to wallets?
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:39 PM
i do not want HIP80, i dont see the point. ( i do like the sqrt root part though) and have suggested to have that as a stand alone hip which should be easily passed based on what ive read
Avatar
I too do not want HIP80. Square root seems a valid idea; move to own HIP please.
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
i do not want HIP80, i dont see the point. ( i do like the sqrt root part though) and have suggested to have that as a stand alone hip which should be easily passed based on what ive read
So submit it, takes maybe 20 minutes, or write it up and I'll submit it for you
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
even if there isn't a mechanism, we should figure out a way to collect the funds and send it to foundation for burn to count for protocol score
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:43 PM
Or just come up with a plan to do it when it’s possible
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:44 PM
im looking at the hip80, its basically stripping everything away leaving the V part isn't it?
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
im looking at the hip80, its basically stripping everything away leaving the V part isn't it?
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:44 PM
And giving IOT credit for phantom data that doesn’t exist
23:45
Mobile has to be radios, not gateways. Otherwise gateways with no radios won’t burn and their penalty will be losing MOBILE rewards they weren’t earning anyway
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
And giving IOT credit for phantom data that doesn’t exist
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:46 PM
i don't agree with all the changes hip80 propose, only the vehnt part (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:47 PM
Welcome to the exclusive club called “people who read the HIP”
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/04/2023 11:47 PM
ive always read hips, i might not understand it fully but i try
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/04/2023 11:48 PM
I know, just saying most people who sat down and read it aren’t the biggest fans of it
Avatar
Well, this is fun—reading up here after a good night’s sleep and breakfast. NFTs for radios sound interesting, but I suspect that’s a matter of subDAO governance for MOBILE. .
01:24
There was some talk of slashing earlier https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093051751504023602 by @groot which I’d like to rephrase, LMK if I mangle it. The idea was, we could use a Utility Score similar to HIP-51 which counts devices (or, as in HIP-51, active devices) and the onboarding fee they paid. Then, we could issue a decree that all MOBILE operators must postpay their missing $40 onboarding fee, and if they don’t, the subDAO wouldn’t reward them. (Legitimate subDAO governance.) Then, the DAO would ask the subDAO for the number of (active) devices for the purpose of the Score, and if the subDAO misreports that by counting devices that haven’t paid, the DAO would slash HNT from the subDAO treasury. To me, this feels like a lot of interference between the internal affairs of the DAO and the subDAO. In my view, the DAO shouldn’t have to meddle in subDAOs like that. There is a huge potential for disagreement if the subDAO and the DAO have to evaluate conflicting measurements of active devices. That is one reason why I prefer to drop the A factor entirely from the Utility Score, and why HIP-80 does not use it. Simplicity.
01:25
.
01:29
I’d like to call out @gateholder for making a concrete proposal to address what he perceives to be a shortcoming of the current HIP-80 formula. Thank you! Let me rephrase your argument, and LMK if I mangle it. .
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
There was some talk of slashing earlier https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093051751504023602 by @groot which I’d like to rephrase, LMK if I mangle it. The idea was, we could use a Utility Score similar to HIP-51 which counts devices (or, as in HIP-51, active devices) and the onboarding fee they paid. Then, we could issue a decree that all MOBILE operators must postpay their missing $40 onboarding fee, and if they don’t, the subDAO wouldn’t reward them. (Legitimate subDAO governance.) Then, the DAO would ask the subDAO for the number of (active) devices for the purpose of the Score, and if the subDAO misreports that by counting devices that haven’t paid, the DAO would slash HNT from the subDAO treasury. To me, this feels like a lot of interference between the internal affairs of the DAO and the subDAO. In my view, the DAO shouldn’t have to meddle in subDAOs like that. There is a huge potential for disagreement if the subDAO and the DAO have to evaluate conflicting measurements of active devices. That is one reason why I prefer to drop the A factor entirely from the Utility Score, and why HIP-80 does not use it. Simplicity.
How is enforcing the rules set out by HIP51 (the one that created DAOs in the first place) meddling in subDAO affairs? Also, I don't think you can reasonably quote simplicity if the basis of that simplicity is the introduction of magic numbers.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 1:45 AM
having the ability to missreport sounds wrong
01:45
and not what blockchains for
01:46
if the numbers have to be "Asked for" the solution is wrong, it has to be counted on chain
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
How is enforcing the rules set out by HIP51 (the one that created DAOs in the first place) meddling in subDAO affairs? Also, I don't think you can reasonably quote simplicity if the basis of that simplicity is the introduction of magic numbers.
People have voiced concerns that we want to avoid overreach from the DAO into internal subDAO affairs. We had a spirited discussion about that leading up to HIP-76 in particular. I think that’s a valid concern. I understood your argument after thinking about it for a moment. But if I read it diffferently, you are saying that if a subDAO pays out rewards in a certain way, the DAO will slash its treasury. Note that the slashing as specified in HIP-51 allows for taking away HNT that is already in the treasury, not just paying out less on an ongoing basis. That’s where I see a potential for disagreement and an accusation of overreach.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Here I’d like to show that we can adjust the weight of the “founder’s bonus” given to IOT simply by varying the Floor coefficient of the HIP-80 formula. Is $75,000 the right level of implied monthly DC burn to assign to IOT while its network develops? [reiterating for pin] (edited)
Thanks for doing this exercise. After reviewing this, I am much more in support of a $20,000 or $25,000 floor for IoT. The critical component missing from this analysis is something we can’t really talk about in this channel. For lack of better terminology, I’ll use the term flywheel. Without a well spinning flywheel, the Mobile subNetwork will not reach a level sufficient enough to push growth in a meaningful way. You don’t hamper the efforts of your bread winner with the highest chance of burning HNT. IoT’s boat will rise off the support of Mobile, until a decade from now when IoT can support itself. There is all this FUD that IoT is going to get swallowed by Mobile, because IoT is in its infancy, it’s earnings are a paltry performance, and it will take 9 years before it can mature. Turn the knob Ferebee. All the way down to $20,000 -$25,000, and let’s not stand in the way of progress.
03:24
We can still achieve the initial philosophical protection of IoT.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
People have voiced concerns that we want to avoid overreach from the DAO into internal subDAO affairs. We had a spirited discussion about that leading up to HIP-76 in particular. I think that’s a valid concern. I understood your argument after thinking about it for a moment. But if I read it diffferently, you are saying that if a subDAO pays out rewards in a certain way, the DAO will slash its treasury. Note that the slashing as specified in HIP-51 allows for taking away HNT that is already in the treasury, not just paying out less on an ongoing basis. That’s where I see a potential for disagreement and an accusation of overreach.
To establish the argument of overreach, I think it's important to define whether the HNT in the subDAOs treasury constitutes ownership or merely possession after allocation from HNT mint. If it is the former: yes overreach; if the latter: no overreach And to answer whether ownership or possession, the character of the allocation of HNT from HNT-Mint to the subDAO-Treasuries needs to be defined. I'm late in the game, apologies if this argument has been brought up already. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
danggo
To establish the argument of overreach, I think it's important to define whether the HNT in the subDAOs treasury constitutes ownership or merely possession after allocation from HNT mint. If it is the former: yes overreach; if the latter: no overreach And to answer whether ownership or possession, the character of the allocation of HNT from HNT-Mint to the subDAO-Treasuries needs to be defined. I'm late in the game, apologies if this argument has been brought up already. (edited)
I don’t disagree. But my point about overreach was more pragmatic than that, and links up with what @BFGNeil - Trackpac.io posted above. I think everything is simpler and less contentious if there is no need for subDAOs and the Helium DAO to reach an agreement on which Hotspots in a subDAO are “active”, and which ones a subDAO “should” be rewarding with DNT. Therefore, I favor a Utility Score that does not need to count “active” Hotspots, or onboarded Hotspots, or indeed anything else that is really the subDAO’s business. That’s why the Utility Score proposed in HIP-80 considers just two things, the DC Burn of a subDAO, and the veHNT delegated towards a subDAO. Both, per HIP-51, fall squarely in the purview of the Helium DAO. The DAO is where the veHNT lives that is awarded for HNT lockup, and the DAO tracks the DC that is burned from HNT. If that’s all that is relevant to the Score, the subDAOs are free to reward their participants however they see fit, which can include tracking radio NFTs or anything else. (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 4:07 AM
For slashing to work they'd have to hold hnt too
04:07
Nothing stopping them draining it as they game
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Thanks for doing this exercise. After reviewing this, I am much more in support of a $20,000 or $25,000 floor for IoT. The critical component missing from this analysis is something we can’t really talk about in this channel. For lack of better terminology, I’ll use the term flywheel. Without a well spinning flywheel, the Mobile subNetwork will not reach a level sufficient enough to push growth in a meaningful way. You don’t hamper the efforts of your bread winner with the highest chance of burning HNT. IoT’s boat will rise off the support of Mobile, until a decade from now when IoT can support itself. There is all this FUD that IoT is going to get swallowed by Mobile, because IoT is in its infancy, it’s earnings are a paltry performance, and it will take 9 years before it can mature. Turn the knob Ferebee. All the way down to $20,000 -$25,000, and let’s not stand in the way of progress.
Thanks for weighing in here. To clarify, if we look at the second-to-last line in the three models I posted previously… https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1092738896971972609 We’re comparing hypothetical situations where IOT has 400,000 active Hotspots and is burning (not more than $20,000/month) MOBILE has 50,000 active Hotspots and is burning $400,000/month Also we assume equal veHNT delegations to both, as that is a distinct (though also important) consideration, separate from the Floor. Then, if we set Floor to $75,000, MOBILE would be assigned a 69.8% share. With Floor at $50,000, MOBILE would get a 73.9% share. With Floor at $20,000, MOBILE would get an 81.7% share. (If economic investors choose to delegate their veHNT preferentially to MOBILE over IOT, the share of total emissions going to MOBILE would be larger, and that going to IOT would be smaller, or vice versa. Again, separate discussion.) So, do I get that right that you think the DAO as a whole would be served best if MOBILE gets that 81.7%? If so, then your argument for $20,000 is valid, and I have no issue with that. It would be great to hear from others which way they think we should turn that knob. Maybe we can reach consensus on that point.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t disagree. But my point about overreach was more pragmatic than that, and links up with what @BFGNeil - Trackpac.io posted above. I think everything is simpler and less contentious if there is no need for subDAOs and the Helium DAO to reach an agreement on which Hotspots in a subDAO are “active”, and which ones a subDAO “should” be rewarding with DNT. Therefore, I favor a Utility Score that does not need to count “active” Hotspots, or onboarded Hotspots, or indeed anything else that is really the subDAO’s business. That’s why the Utility Score proposed in HIP-80 considers just two things, the DC Burn of a subDAO, and the veHNT delegated towards a subDAO. Both, per HIP-51, fall squarely in the purview of the Helium DAO. The DAO is where the veHNT lives that is awarded for HNT lockup, and the DAO tracks the DC that is burned from HNT. If that’s all that is relevant to the Score, the subDAOs are free to reward their participants however they see fit, which can include tracking radio NFTs or anything else. (edited)
We are in agreement about not counting A in the utility score.
👍 2
04:49
We will see if hardliners can compromise on the aspect of the Floor for IoT.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
People have voiced concerns that we want to avoid overreach from the DAO into internal subDAO affairs. We had a spirited discussion about that leading up to HIP-76 in particular. I think that’s a valid concern. I understood your argument after thinking about it for a moment. But if I read it diffferently, you are saying that if a subDAO pays out rewards in a certain way, the DAO will slash its treasury. Note that the slashing as specified in HIP-51 allows for taking away HNT that is already in the treasury, not just paying out less on an ongoing basis. That’s where I see a potential for disagreement and an accusation of overreach.
Can't call something overreach when it was specified before the DAO was formed/joined.
Avatar
I’m in agreement with simplifying the DAO Utility score as proposed with the exception of the IoT floor. Change that to 20,000/month, and I’m in. Wen Vote I would say if that is acceptable.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Can't call something overreach when it was specified before the DAO was formed/joined.
My point is that if we avoid a situation that encourages the Helium DAO and the subDAOs to develop dueling opinions of parameters like “active Hotspots” (an issue you address with Max in your latest HIP draft), then we avoid certain conflicts where the question of overreach comes up. That is one benefit in my view of simplifying the Utility Score such that the count of “active Hotspots” is no longer relevant.
👍 1
Avatar
It's a submitted HIP, not a draft. Regardless, like I said this morning, you create a magic number to simplify a formula but that doesn't make it any simpler, it just changes the variable.
04:59
Moving to onboarded instead of active is a much simpler solution
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It's a submitted HIP, not a draft. Regardless, like I said this morning, you create a magic number to simplify a formula but that doesn't make it any simpler, it just changes the variable.
I think you submitted a HIP draft in that it is not yet a numbered HIP. That's my experience. 😉
Avatar
Sometimes we just have to vote in order to settle our differences.
Avatar
Magic numbers don't make formulas simpler, they're just hiding the complexity.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I’m in agreement with simplifying the DAO Utility score as proposed with the exception of the IoT floor. Change that to 20,000/month, and I’m in. Wen Vote I would say if that is acceptable.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:02 AM
i assume you've run the numbers and think 20k makes it more reasonable? mind justifying why a little? just curious (edited)
Avatar
gateholders ideas of on the fly ad-hoc deciding where the HNT should go is objectionable.
05:03
No subDAO is ever going to join the Helium DAO if the economic model is expected to change on you at any moment some guy with some radios thinks it should be revised.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
i assume you've run the numbers and think 20k makes it more reasonable? mind justifying why a little? just curious (edited)
Please refer to the example calculations in my last pinned post and argue about the numbers! 😉
Avatar
(and feel free to replace some guy with some radios by any other description of a network participant)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Please refer to the example calculations in my last pinned post and argue about the numbers! 😉
Add another subDAO and see what happens
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Please refer to the example calculations in my last pinned post and argue about the numbers! 😉
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:04 AM
thanks 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Add another subDAO and see what happens
Nothing surprising, TBH.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Magic numbers don't make formulas simpler, they're just hiding the complexity.
Seriously, we already have magic numbers. The HIP-51 formula uses the magic number “1” in its own floor calculations. As in D = max(1, sqrt(DC Burn per epoch)) Also note that this means something different now than when HIP-51 was written, as there are now 30 epochs in a month and not 30*48 = 1,440. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Seriously, we already have magic numbers. The HIP-51 formula uses the magic number “1” in its own floor calculations. As in D = max(1, sqrt(DC Burn per epoch)) Also note that this means something different now than when HIP-51 was written, as there are now 30 epochs in a month and not 30*48 = 1,440. (edited)
0 and 1 are not magic numbers, by definition.
Avatar
To get the same result as before in HIP-51, we would now have to be talking about D = max(1, sqrt((DC Burn per epoch)/48))) Just sayin’. So I guess 48 is also not a magic number. (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:09 AM
im for 75k if everyone agrees so much dc burn will come from mobile, its inevitable but gives us a bit more of a timeframe to get iot going (edited)
05:10
it doesnt make that much difference with 50k or 20k just a bit more runway which iot deserves, it brought a tonne of us here
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
im for 75k if everyone agrees so much dc burn will come from mobile, its inevitable but gives us a bit more of a timeframe to get iot going (edited)
I modeled $75K and $50K and $20K and would love for people to duke it out over the numbers. I have a personal favorite among the three, but actually I’m not telling. (edited)
Avatar
LoRaWAN Hotspots currently get 62% of all HNT, an average of 0.13 HNT each per day Come 19th IOT can only get a max of 80% of 68% of the HNT = 54.4% if the IOT Utility score was infinite and the MOBILE Utility score was 2 or 3 Looking at the 3rd line of the 75K scenario then IOT gets 73.4% x 54.4 = approx 40% And due to the 5B premine we need about 3 months worth of IOT mining (with no IOT sales) to get a ratio of about 3/4 of that = 30% So in reality IOT owners will at best have an income half that as they had previously - so MOBILE Data Burn better help HNT demand. Obviously this doesnt account for any changes in the score due to the V split. It really doesnt matter if 2/3 of all the HNT ever earned went to IOT already. Its IOTs share of the 10% of HNT that will be emitted in the next 4 years that everyone will judge the success of Helium's LoRaWAN side on. If it doesnt goto the hotspot owners in sufficient value, with increasing energy costs, then they will turn more hotspots off. We may not need them for the over saturated coverage but we do need hotspot vendors selling hotspots for them to cover the support the existing owners need. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
i assume you've run the numbers and think 20k makes it more reasonable? mind justifying why a little? just curious (edited)
Actually Ferebee “ran the numbers” in the following link https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1092738896971972609 but in truth it’s all conjecture with respect to what’s really at stake here, . . . protecting IoT while at the same time giving the Mobile subDAO a realistic chance at spinning their own flywheel, for the benefit of all. I’m limited to what I can say because of rules. (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:12 AM
mobile has that tho, the datas there (edited)
05:12
the devices are there
05:12
iot didnt have that
05:12
its taken time, those services are building we shouldnt wait for it much longer, just give it a chance
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
its taken time, those services are building we shouldnt wait for it much longer, just give it a chance
I’m in agreement with giving it a chance. The question is how much of a chance? You don’t think a ~10x is giving IoT a chance? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
LoRaWAN Hotspots currently get 62% of all HNT, an average of 0.13 HNT each per day Come 19th IOT can only get a max of 80% of 68% of the HNT = 54.4% if the IOT Utility score was infinite and the MOBILE Utility score was 2 or 3 Looking at the 3rd line of the 75K scenario then IOT gets 73.4% x 54.4 = approx 40% And due to the 5B premine we need about 3 months worth of IOT mining (with no IOT sales) to get a ratio of about 3/4 of that = 30% So in reality IOT owners will at best have an income half that as they had previously - so MOBILE Data Burn better help HNT demand. Obviously this doesnt account for any changes in the score due to the V split. It really doesnt matter if 2/3 of all the HNT ever earned went to IOT already. Its IOTs share of the 10% of HNT that will be emitted in the next 4 years that everyone will judge the success of Helium's LoRaWAN side on. If it doesnt goto the hotspot owners in sufficient value, with increasing energy costs, then they will turn more hotspots off. We may not need them for the over saturated coverage but we do need hotspot vendors selling hotspots for them to cover the support the existing owners need. (edited)
I agree with that, and that’s why I am totally in favor of giving IOT the “founder’s bonus” that capcom spoke about a year ago. At the same time we should also consider that if IOT were to stay alone for the next four years, it could have all the HNT, but the value brought to HNT by DC Burn would be quite low, so having all that HNT wouldn’t be too exciting. If MOBILE can burn more DC in a hurry, that will bring a lot of new value to HNT. And not to get into token price here, but just consider that the HNT that will be burned to DC will have to be purchased somewhere. Who is selling HNT? Not the big holders. It’s the miners for the most part. So a lot of the dollars spent on DC Burn from MOBILE will go right back to the people mining, which is where they belong. (edited)
Avatar
again, we're kinda all just spitting into the wind here. the only thing that makes a formula work is that it continues to work when the variables are cranked to extremes. i think we're all caught 'turning the knob', where we should be allowing the formula to carry that weight. a simpler formula can handle a stress test better. only counting onboarding and DC burn is the simplest path forward, it would just require a retroactive onboarding fee for Mobile. im still of the school of thought we could soft-launch DAOs on test net to watch the impact on tokenomics, or can go further and hold the subDAOs in a trial period and allow the community to vote on the subDAOs participation, whether that be voting 'noDAO', saying 'stake more', maybe even 'stake less'?, or saying 'burn more', but by positioning the new DNT into the formula and running it in real time for weeks we can see what exactly the implications of this formula are.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I’m in agreement with giving it a chance. The question is how much of a chance? You don’t think a ~10x is giving IoT a chance? (edited)
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:19 AM
iot needs a year or so to hit those kind of numbers , mobile burn seems inevitable, now would be the worst time to drop the iot's network earnings too quickly
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
LoRaWAN Hotspots currently get 62% of all HNT, an average of 0.13 HNT each per day Come 19th IOT can only get a max of 80% of 68% of the HNT = 54.4% if the IOT Utility score was infinite and the MOBILE Utility score was 2 or 3 Looking at the 3rd line of the 75K scenario then IOT gets 73.4% x 54.4 = approx 40% And due to the 5B premine we need about 3 months worth of IOT mining (with no IOT sales) to get a ratio of about 3/4 of that = 30% So in reality IOT owners will at best have an income half that as they had previously - so MOBILE Data Burn better help HNT demand. Obviously this doesnt account for any changes in the score due to the V split. It really doesnt matter if 2/3 of all the HNT ever earned went to IOT already. Its IOTs share of the 10% of HNT that will be emitted in the next 4 years that everyone will judge the success of Helium's LoRaWAN side on. If it doesnt goto the hotspot owners in sufficient value, with increasing energy costs, then they will turn more hotspots off. We may not need them for the over saturated coverage but we do need hotspot vendors selling hotspots for them to cover the support the existing owners need. (edited)
The key factor in that equation can’t be discussed in here :(. We know what will keep the IoT lights on (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
iot needs a year or so to hit those kind of numbers , mobile burn seems inevitable, now would be the worst time to drop the iot's network earnings too quickly
I think IOT will need more than a year, but I salute you for working to shorten the wait! 💜
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:20 AM
haha yeah it could be
05:20
i've heard of a few blue whale deals tho
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
i've heard of a few blue whale deals tho
Then we have no need to overly protect IoT
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:21 AM
those deals are fresh, you're talking months of work its a year at least for scale on something like that
Avatar
What we all need, regardless of subDAO is HNT burn through data credit usage. Which floor accomplishes that best? $75,000 floor for IoT or $20,000 floor? (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:22 AM
75k , give some runway to slow the inevitable if mobile is so good?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
i've heard of a few blue whale deals tho
BTW I fully approve Scott Kaplin walking around looking imposing, bringing in deals through 1663, and dumping them on you so you can tear your remaining hair out doing all the dirty work. 😉
partyparrot 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
75k , give some runway to slow the inevitable if mobile is so good?
Lol. But not give up the store. $3.6 Million runway for 4 years, is simply too much.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Lol. But not give up the store. $3.6 Million runway for 4 years, is simply too much.
Let’s not confuse apples with oranges. Nobody is actually getting paid $75,000/month. It’s all paper money at this point.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Let’s not confuse apples with oranges. Nobody is actually getting paid $75,000/month. It’s all paper money at this point.
I know. :). But it is paper money in the end when HNT gets doled out to the treasuries. That’s how blockchain infrastructure builders look at it. :). (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:26 AM
You forget all the earnings DC burn brings in
05:26
That thing we can't talk about
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
You forget all the earnings DC burn brings in
IoT needs to transmit a lot of data to reach a run rate of 75,000/month.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:27 AM
Yep
05:27
Worked out how many sensors that is yet?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
IoT needs to transmit a lot of data to reach a run rate of 75,000/month.
From what Arman says, like 50x what it does now. And so far everything is just basically dry-runs.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:28 AM
And even if it has that many , mobile still wins out
05:28
4 years and 3m? Sounds like a blip to what's coming
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
To get the same result as before in HIP-51, we would now have to be talking about D = max(1, sqrt((DC Burn per epoch)/48))) Just sayin’. So I guess 48 is also not a magic number. (edited)
magic numbers, like 4th roots have definitions
🫡 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
And even if it has that many , mobile still wins out
I’m not being disrespectful, or argumentative, but is it possible that you have a bias towards IoT? 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
groot
magic numbers, like 4th roots have definitions
“month” is a magic number too BTW…
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:29 AM
Never...
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
“month” is a magic number too BTW…
troll face me all you want, it's the truth.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:29 AM
I have an indoor 5g does that make it any better?
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I have an indoor 5g does that make it any better?
Lol. Everything is relative. Your 5G deployment, how does that compare to your investment in IoT? You don’t have to answer 🙂
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:31 AM
It's shoved on someone's kitchen side earning genesis rewards, I'd have been stupid not to do that
05:32
Iot wise, I spent a lot lol
😂 1
Avatar
We need all types. The people that make heavy investments into IOT… the people that make heavy investments into MOBILE… the people that make heavy investments into the thing we don’t talk about. Often, the three overlap, in different ways. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
magic numbers, like 4th roots have definitions
Now, speaking of magic numbers. As I mentioned earlier, @gateholder is concerned that MOBILE will have a rough time until Helium Mobile itself launches, which will happen “Soon”. So he has made a proposal (thank you sir!) to give MOBILE a helping hand in the beginning. The idea, as I understand it, would be to carve out a fixed percentage of HNT emissions, which would be distributed among all subDAOs equally, disregarding their Utility Scores, while the bulk of emissions would be distributed according to the formula proposed in HIP-80. gateholder’s concern is that even with the formula proposed in HIP-80, the Utility Score could drop down very low for MOBILE with no DC Burn. First off, I’ll say that I think MOBILE can handle that. The treasury exchange rate for MOBILE will launch at zero anyway because of the massive MOBILE premine, and will take months to rise off that floor. However, I respect the alternative viewpoint, so let’s see what we can do. To demonstrate the issue gateholder is addressing, I’ve extended my HIP-80 model sheet ($75K Floor) with an additional row that shows what happens to MOBILE pre-revenue. Looks nasty, right?
05:38
05:39
@gateholder says we need to protect the revenue of MOBILE, or indeed any subDAO we accept into the Helium DAO, with a guaranteed minimum revenue option. I can see that. So, what if we just use the tool HIP-80 already gives us? We can protect MOBILE at launch, and simultaneously give a chance to any potential new subDAO, if we not only set a Floor for IOT that is higher than 1, but also set a Floor for all other subDAOs that is higher than 1. Is that arbitrary? Actually not. “1” itself is arbitrary and is based on the value of $1 and the length of 1 epoch. So any other value could be equally right. How about $1,000? Any subDAO that is accepted can receive a minimum distribution that is based on a minimum assumed DC Burn of $1,000/month. At the moment, this would have a similar effect to gateholder’s proposal of delegating a fixed portion of HNT emissions to be split among all subDAOs. But later, if Helium is successful and total HNT DC Burn revenue is many millions of dollars, the share provided to a tiny, new, pre-revenue subDAOs would be smaller, as it should be.
Avatar
So much for simple, lets introduce more variables
05:41
If you give everyone a floor its the same as giving nobody a floor yet with more variables
Avatar
There is no additional variable. I’m changing the arbitrary value of “1”, which actually means “$30/month assumed revenue floor per subDAO” to “$1,000/month assumed revenue floor per subDAO”. Is 30 better than 1,000?
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If you give everyone a floor its the same as giving nobody a floor yet with more variables
No, it’s not. Do the math please.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
@gateholder says we need to protect the revenue of MOBILE, or indeed any subDAO we accept into the Helium DAO, with a guaranteed minimum revenue option. I can see that. So, what if we just use the tool HIP-80 already gives us? We can protect MOBILE at launch, and simultaneously give a chance to any potential new subDAO, if we not only set a Floor for IOT that is higher than 1, but also set a Floor for all other subDAOs that is higher than 1. Is that arbitrary? Actually not. “1” itself is arbitrary and is based on the value of $1 and the length of 1 epoch. So any other value could be equally right. How about $1,000? Any subDAO that is accepted can receive a minimum distribution that is based on a minimum assumed DC Burn of $1,000/month. At the moment, this would have a similar effect to gateholder’s proposal of delegating a fixed portion of HNT emissions to be split among all subDAOs. But later, if Helium is successful and total HNT DC Burn revenue is many millions of dollars, the share provided to a tiny, new, pre-revenue subDAOs would be smaller, as it should be.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 5:48 AM
Sounds reasonable
👍 1
Avatar
i don't see why we need to protect mobile at all given that they will just burn through esims anyway
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
We need all types. The people that make heavy investments into IOT… the people that make heavy investments into MOBILE… the people that make heavy investments into the thing we don’t talk about. Often, the three overlap, in different ways. (edited)
What about the people who invested heavily into all three??? Don’t forget us:) Again, everything is relative. My investment’s are more than some and not as much as others.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
No, it’s not. Do the math please.
can just drop both sides
05:52
the ratio is all that matters in the end?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
i don't see why we need to protect mobile at all given that they will just burn through esims anyway
If they do, the Floor of $1,000/month has no effect, right? Except for the period before Helium Mobile (thus, eSIMs) actually launches.
Avatar
exactly why I don't see the need to make it so difficult
05:53
Have you actually played around what would happen with the utility score when you'd just plug in 40 for the onboarding fees?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Now, speaking of magic numbers. As I mentioned earlier, @gateholder is concerned that MOBILE will have a rough time until Helium Mobile itself launches, which will happen “Soon”. So he has made a proposal (thank you sir!) to give MOBILE a helping hand in the beginning. The idea, as I understand it, would be to carve out a fixed percentage of HNT emissions, which would be distributed among all subDAOs equally, disregarding their Utility Scores, while the bulk of emissions would be distributed according to the formula proposed in HIP-80. gateholder’s concern is that even with the formula proposed in HIP-80, the Utility Score could drop down very low for MOBILE with no DC Burn. First off, I’ll say that I think MOBILE can handle that. The treasury exchange rate for MOBILE will launch at zero anyway because of the massive MOBILE premine, and will take months to rise off that floor. However, I respect the alternative viewpoint, so let’s see what we can do. To demonstrate the issue gateholder is addressing, I’ve extended my HIP-80 model sheet ($75K Floor) with an additional row that shows what happens to MOBILE pre-revenue. Looks nasty, right?
in my playing with the numbers this defiantly helps and becomes the mechanism of support although the number of 1000 month might be tad low and since I think the 75k for IOT is about right long term, I like 3k month for MOBILE and 75k for IOT IMO
Avatar
Avatar
groot
the ratio is all that matters in the end?
We’re basically providing guardrails for the initial phase when IOT DC Burn, MOBILE DC Burn, and HNT price are all, compared to a hypothetical 2030 scenario, close to zero. Trying to give both subDAOs a participation award, like in kindergarten.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
in my playing with the numbers this defiantly helps and becomes the mechanism of support although the number of 1000 month might be tad low and since I think the 75k for IOT is about right long term, I like 3k month for MOBILE and 75k for IOT IMO
Please consider two things. First, MOBILE won’t need this for long, we hope. groot says once the eSIMs are available, people are going to go wild watching Netflix with all family members of all Helium MOBILE hosts. Second, this is intended to support MOBILE at launch and new subDAOs in the future equally. Do you want to give a new subDAO the same advantage? I’m not saying $3,000 is the wrong number.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Have you actually played around what would happen with the utility score when you'd just plug in 40 for the onboarding fees?
After spending weeks batting these formulas around, I’ve grown to hate the A factor with a passion. _(ツ)_/¯
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Please consider two things. First, MOBILE won’t need this for long, we hope. groot says once the eSIMs are available, people are going to go wild watching Netflix with all family members of all Helium MOBILE hosts. Second, this is intended to support MOBILE at launch and new subDAOs in the future equally. Do you want to give a new subDAO the same advantage? I’m not saying $3,000 is the wrong number.
well i think this will be the negotiated mechanism to give new sub DAO's UBI for there growth and probably add some sort of time limit (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
After spending weeks batting these formulas around, I’ve grown to hate the A factor with a passion. _(ツ)_/¯
I like it because it gives every subDAO the opportunity to get the same protection while the floor does not
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
After spending weeks batting these formulas around, I’ve grown to hate the A factor with a passion. _(ツ)_/¯
I do concur and I also worry that lots of people who say just have 1 indoor/outdoor are going to feel nickel and dimed
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
well i think this will be the negotiated mechanism to give new sub DAO's UBI for there growth and probably add some sort of time limit (edited)
No time limit. $1,000 would be the proposed floor for all forever. The one-time, special-case, founder’s bonus floor of $75,000 (or $20,000) goes away 1 August 2027. Remember that in the future, that $1,000/month will be peanuts compared to the existing subDAOs. Just Neil will be burning $3,000,000/month all by himself.
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I do concur and I also worry that lots of people who say just have 1 indoor/outdoor are going to feel nickel and dimed
as opposed to all the IOT folks who would just love to get shunted by some radio owner
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
No time limit. $1,000 would be the proposed floor for all forever. The one-time, special-case, founder’s bonus floor of $75,000 (or $20,000) goes away 1 August 2027. Remember that in the future, that $1,000/month will be peanuts compared to the existing subDAOs. Just Neil will be burning $3,000,000/month all by himself.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 6:03 AM
Here's hoping 🤣
Avatar
Avatar
groot
as opposed to all the IOT folks who would just love to get shunted by some radio owner
im just saying normies who def do not participate here, will get a notification that we all voted that you have to pay 40 bucks if you want to keep earning mobile... and lots of change is coming to mobile
Avatar
so yesterday we had 'upper people' now we have 'normies' where the f does it end?
06:05
these classes only exist in your head
Avatar
and my feeling is mobile is in a tenuious place, esp with the last set of delays and issues
👆 1
Avatar
i'll keep the rest of the remark I was typing to myself, just stop shoving people into classes
Avatar
Can’t we all just get along? 🥰
06:08
Anyway, I love everybody who climbs more masts than I do.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Can’t we all just get along? 🥰
Avatar
Just to deliver some context… This is the D factor as defined in HIP-80:
06:09
Avatar
Avatar
groot
so yesterday we had 'upper people' now we have 'normies' where the f does it end?
yes I simplify and try not to go into specifics people and classification is the easiest way to do that...
Avatar
HIP-51 uses the same definition, except that Floor is always 1 for everybody. Instead, HIP-51 adds the dreaded A factor into the equation to keep things from being too simple. The figure of 50 here means that we give IOT the benefit of the doubt that sqrt(DC Burn per epoch) = 50, or DC Burn per epoch = 50*50 = $2,500, or DC Burn per month = $75,000. The suggestion of a floor of $1,000/month for everybody else would translate as DC Burn per epoch = $33,33 or sqrt of DC Burn per epoch = 5.7735. I’d be inclined to write that as “6”.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
i'll keep the rest of the remark I was typing to myself, just stop shoving people into classes
lol I know I am bourgeoisie skum 😉
Avatar
C’mon let's take the class warfare to #general 😉
😂 2
Avatar
the only war is class war Troll
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
be respectful here please
Avatar
So to return to what I just wrote above, if we go with @AndrewsMD’s preferred floor for IOT of $20,000, that’s $20,000 per month is $666 per epoch (OOOH! I like that!) is 25.82 as the minimum square root of DC Burn per epoch. I’d write that as 26.
06:16
If we go that way, we’d be saying, IOT gets a Floor of 26 (until 1 August 2027), and everybody else gets a Floor of 6, always.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So to return to what I just wrote above, if we go with @AndrewsMD’s preferred floor for IOT of $20,000, that’s $20,000 per month is $666 per epoch (OOOH! I like that!) is 25.82 as the minimum square root of DC Burn per epoch. I’d write that as 26.
Avatar
As opposed to the floor of “1” in HIP-51. Which, when it was written, applied to 30 minute epochs, or 1,440 epochs per month. So the “1” in HIP-51 was actually equivalent to a “floor” of $1,440/month for all subDAOs. Plus the A factor. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So to return to what I just wrote above, if we go with @AndrewsMD’s preferred floor for IOT of $20,000, that’s $20,000 per month is $666 per epoch (OOOH! I like that!) is 25.82 as the minimum square root of DC Burn per epoch. I’d write that as 26.
I have played with lower number for IOT and I come to the conclusion that 75 in the longer term is better IMO
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I have played with lower number for IOT and I come to the conclusion that 75 in the longer term is better IMO
Thank you for your engagement! Now please convince @AndrewsMD 😅
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Thank you for your engagement! Now please convince @AndrewsMD 😅
😂 1
waveform pinned a message to this channel. 04/05/2023 6:21 AM
Avatar
Just pinning the sheets as they are so far back now
👍 2
Avatar
I’m beginning to realize that I buried the lede a bit about the DC Burn “floor”. I’ll try again, from the beginning. We’ve been discussing a floor of $75,000/month for IOT, and a floor of $1,000/month for everything else. Seems arbitrary? Well, in fact HIP-51 has a floor of its own. Let me explain. Here’s HIP-51:
06:46
06:46
Let’s look at the D factor here. When that was written, an epoch was 30 minutes, giving 1,440 epochs/month. Every epoch, we took the greater of 1, or the square root of the DC Burn of that epoch. If DC Burn is nothing, then that means that for 1,440 epochs, the maximum was 1. That means that the Utility Score gets the same credit as if its subDAO had burned $1 every epoch, or $1,440 per month. So in that way, HIP-51 defines, for all subDAOs, a floor of $1,440 per month. In HIP-80, we propose to use a different floor for IOT and for all other subDAOs. Yes, that’s more complicated. But on the other hand, we get rid of the entire A factor, along with all the various complications it brings with onboarding fees, “active” vs. “onboarded” Hotspots, online/offline devices, gateways vs. radios, and more. So it’s simpler in that way.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Thank you for your engagement! Now please convince @AndrewsMD 😅
I would say you don't want it much lower than 60k but up for debate
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Let’s look at the D factor here. When that was written, an epoch was 30 minutes, giving 1,440 epochs/month. Every epoch, we took the greater of 1, or the square root of the DC Burn of that epoch. If DC Burn is nothing, then that means that for 1,440 epochs, the maximum was 1. That means that the Utility Score gets the same credit as if its subDAO had burned $1 every epoch, or $1,440 per month. So in that way, HIP-51 defines, for all subDAOs, a floor of $1,440 per month. In HIP-80, we propose to use a different floor for IOT and for all other subDAOs. Yes, that’s more complicated. But on the other hand, we get rid of the entire A factor, along with all the various complications it brings with onboarding fees, “active” vs. “onboarded” Hotspots, online/offline devices, gateways vs. radios, and more. So it’s simpler in that way.
lol I would be cool with this number too 😉
Avatar
Which floor is the right one? We can argue about that… We proposed $75K for IOT and also modeled $50K and $20K. I don’t really want to get into that personally. If we decide on a floor for all other subDAOs as well, should we go with $1,440? As was originally implied by HIP-51? We could, why not! 1,440 divided by 30 epochs is 48. Square root of 48 is… wait a minute, let's just say 49. Square root of 49 is 7! So I suggested a $1,000 DC Burn floor earlier for all subDAOs after IOT (forever, no cutoff time), giving a Floor value of 6. You wanna make it 7 instead? You have my blessing!
06:56
. Now furthermore, we can make these two “magic numbers” chain variables. The Floor for IOT, which would be 50 for a Burn floor of $75,000, or 26 for a Burn floor of $20,000. The one-time special dispensation founder’s bonus for IOT, that goes away on 1 August 2027. And the Floor for MOBILE and all other new subDAOs, forever, which could be 7. Chain variables can be modified by Helium DAO governance on Solana. It takes a vote, but it doesn’t take a HIP. Interesting…
ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 04/05/2023 6:56 AM
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Which floor is the right one? We can argue about that… We proposed $75K for IOT and also modeled $50K and $20K. I don’t really want to get into that personally. If we decide on a floor for all other subDAOs as well, should we go with $1,440? As was originally implied by HIP-51? We could, why not! 1,440 divided by 30 epochs is 48. Square root of 48 is… wait a minute, let's just say 49. Square root of 49 is 7! So I suggested a $1,000 DC Burn floor earlier for all subDAOs after IOT (forever, no cutoff time), giving a Floor value of 6. You wanna make it 7 instead? You have my blessing!
its the lucky number i know small potatoes but yes I like 7 better than 6 and I think also it makes sense for future DAO's but feel there will ned to be levers that can tailor to a new subDAO's needs but this is a great place and I will take it
06:58
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
its the lucky number i know small potatoes but yes I like 7 better than 6 and I think also it makes sense for future DAO's but feel there will ned to be levers that can tailor to a new subDAO's needs but this is a great place and I will take it
You convince @AndrewsMD to go with $75,000 and I’ll give you 7. 😉
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 6:59 AM
lgtm
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So to return to what I just wrote above, if we go with @AndrewsMD’s preferred floor for IOT of $20,000, that’s $20,000 per month is $666 per epoch (OOOH! I like that!) is 25.82 as the minimum square root of DC Burn per epoch. I’d write that as 26.
Technically I said I would support $20-25,000 right? 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Technically I said I would support $20-25,000 right? 🙂
You did! Also this proposal here would raise the floor for MOBILE. If you can convince gateholder to accept $25,000, I’m fine with that too. $25,000 is about 29, how does that sound @gateholder? I’ll step back. 😉
Avatar
you 3 do know there are 170k other people too right? 😂
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
You did! Also this proposal here would raise the floor for MOBILE. If you can convince gateholder to accept $25,000, I’m fine with that too. $25,000 is about 29, how does that sound @gateholder? I’ll step back. 😉
I worry in the long run that might not be enough for IOT
Avatar
Avatar
groot
you 3 do know there are 170k other people too right? 😂
You gotta work with what you got.
Avatar
but kinda getting tired of arguing against myself
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 7:05 AM
i think you're right 25k is not enough , lets meet in the middle $69,420 and be done with it 🤣
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
i think you're right 25k is not enough , lets meet in the middle $69,420 and be done with it 🤣
lol
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 7:05 AM
but seriously 25k is a big ask for lora any time soon
07:05
it needs a lot of support still whilst mobile has months before its using a lot of dc
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I worry in the long run that might not be enough for IOT
So when @AndrewsMD says $25,000 or 29 he probably means 30. At that point we’re looking at the difference between a linear factor (after allowing for the square root) of 30 or 50 (for $75,000) as the amount IOT should get credit for before it picks up steam. 30 and 50 are different, but they aren’t in different universes. I think it’s more important we find some degree of consensus, than not find a good foundation for the future.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
You did! Also this proposal here would raise the floor for MOBILE. If you can convince gateholder to accept $25,000, I’m fine with that too. $25,000 is about 29, how does that sound @gateholder? I’ll step back. 😉
I need to see the newest proposal. I’m jumping in and out in between patients 🙂
Avatar
And really, seriously, the most important thing here is to grow the pie. If the pie grows the way it’s supposed to, all the slices will be big enough…
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
And really, seriously, the most important thing here is to grow the pie. If the pie grows the way it’s supposed to, all the slices will be big enough…
Can you point me to a summary link of the current working proposal? Backscroll is serious!!! (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So when @AndrewsMD says $25,000 or 29 he probably means 30. At that point we’re looking at the difference between a linear factor (after allowing for the square root) of 30 or 50 (for $75,000) as the amount IOT should get credit for before it picks up steam. 30 and 50 are different, but they aren’t in different universes. I think it’s more important we find some degree of consensus, than not find a good foundation for the future.
well smack in the middle would be 40
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I need to see the newest proposal. I’m jumping in and out in between patients 🙂
(Proposal would be, for example, $75,000 IOT gives a Floor of 50 or $27,000 IOT gives a Floor of 30, one-time bonus that ends in 2027. All other subDAOs get a Floor of 7. Which corresponds to the implicit floor of HIP-51, which implicitly assumes a minimum Burn of $1,400/month...)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
well smack in the middle would be 40
We love 40! 40 is the number we started with. 🤪
Avatar
It's kind of a perverse incentive though, but if everyone likes that
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
We love 40! 40 is the number we started with. 🤪
Avatar
BTW a Floor of 40 corresponds to a minimum implied DC burn for IOT of $48,000. To me that feels generous but not spendthrift on the part of MOBILE.
Avatar
40 for iot 7 for others I can dig it
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
40 for iot 7 for others I can dig it
BTW thank you for bringing the focus onto the issue of MOBILE not getting any DC Burn until Nova fully launches Helium Mobile. I had pretty much overlooked it. And also for bringing the issue of incentivizing new subDAOs into closer focus.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
BTW thank you for bringing the focus onto the issue of MOBILE not getting any DC Burn until Nova fully launches Helium Mobile. I had pretty much overlooked it. And also for bringing the issue of incentivizing new subDAOs into closer focus.
NP
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
BTW thank you for bringing the focus onto the issue of MOBILE not getting any DC Burn until Nova fully launches Helium Mobile. I had pretty much overlooked it. And also for bringing the issue of incentivizing new subDAOs into closer focus.
Just read some backscroll (I’m mostly OOO this week)—I’m glad we addressed this. I do think it’s the biggest issue we had. I’m happy with the numbers presented
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
You convince @AndrewsMD to go with $75,000 and I’ll give you 7. 😉
We dont need to convince 1 person. They are only one of many who will vote (edited)
👏 1
Avatar
Just kidding. To clarify, after this productive discussion, I propose that we define Floor as 7 for all subDAOs, with a special exception for IOT. The Floor of IOT shall be 40 until 1 August 2027, at which time it too shall revert to 7. This covers most of the bases we have discussed here, combining the best of various different positions as explained by different participants. (edited)
👍 3
👎 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:10 AM
What if we remove the DNTs and allow Mobile to pull from the data transfer bucket for its POC until data starts flowing? This will allow Mobile to earn no more than 30% of the rewards until 2027 this way we protect IOT. I put together a model below. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C8G06_MgFYPrttVKp4KrgKSPalTZ1L8ausymPxnQh6A/edit
(MODEL TO USE) Reward Breakdown Abbreviations,Color Key,Variable Non-Lorawan Protocol,NLP,Calculation Data Transfer DC Burn,DTDC Non-Challnger PoC Rewards,NC-PoC Rewards Breakdown Between 1st and 2nd halving,Between 2nd and 3rd halving Reward Buckets,%,HNT,%,HNT Total Pre-Net Issuance Recycle,NA...
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Just kidding. To clarify, after this productive discussion, I propose that we define Floor as 7 for all subDAOs, with a special exception for IOT. The Floor of IOT shall be 40 until 1 August 2027, at which time it too shall revert to 7. This covers most of the bases we have discussed here, combining the best of various different positions as explained by different participants. (edited)
I am truly thankful for the intelligence and open mindedness of this community. This solution is from @gateholder??? Awesome. I can support this. For several reasons. 1) It still supports the IoT network without giving away the store. 2) It does not over penalize Mobile 3) It grants subDAO’s that we vote with veHNT to enter the Helium ecosystem a reward incentive to join. 4) Its a compromise regarding many concerns raised in this HIP channel. It may not meet 100% of the needs of everyone, but it’s sufficient compromise. Wen update to HIP80 and Wen Vote?
partyparrot 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:27 AM
What does this mean?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
And really, seriously, the most important thing here is to grow the pie. If the pie grows the way it’s supposed to, all the slices will be big enough…
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:36 AM
Let’s just say grow the pie and problem solved. Love it.
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Let’s look at the D factor here. When that was written, an epoch was 30 minutes, giving 1,440 epochs/month. Every epoch, we took the greater of 1, or the square root of the DC Burn of that epoch. If DC Burn is nothing, then that means that for 1,440 epochs, the maximum was 1. That means that the Utility Score gets the same credit as if its subDAO had burned $1 every epoch, or $1,440 per month. So in that way, HIP-51 defines, for all subDAOs, a floor of $1,440 per month. In HIP-80, we propose to use a different floor for IOT and for all other subDAOs. Yes, that’s more complicated. But on the other hand, we get rid of the entire A factor, along with all the various complications it brings with onboarding fees, “active” vs. “onboarded” Hotspots, online/offline devices, gateways vs. radios, and more. So it’s simpler in that way.
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:39 AM
Your argument is not having a factor multiply by 0 is somehow the same as an arbitrary floor?
Avatar
Why is $48k acceptable? That’s still a very high number
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:41 AM
Because 3 people said so, Dawgnuts. Keep up
Avatar
Yeah, no.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:42 AM
Don’t you understand, 3 people on the same side negotiated with each other to change their number. Therefore problem solved let’s rush a vote
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 9:42 AM
There are numbers pinned
Avatar
I like your latest idea that’s based on something that’s real.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 9:42 AM
Click the pin and there are some spreadsheets showing the difference
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:43 AM
My spreadsheet didn’t get pinned
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 9:43 AM
20k, 50k and 70k
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
Why is $48k acceptable? That’s still a very high number
yes this number protects iot from being crushed by mobile if it is wildly successful, but also keeps mobile off the floor until both the e-sim relaunches and or helium mobile launches...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:44 AM
What if a new network comes tomorrow and they think they need 7 years to really start getting data transfer flowing. How do we incorporate them?
09:45
Can we give them a 12 for 8 years to allow them to incubate?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 9:46 AM
They get that proposed floor
☝️ 1
09:46
Think it was 1,400
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:46 AM
That floor doesn’t work for them though. They need a higher floor for a medium term of 8 years
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 9:46 AM
Then we don't vote them in and say for them to come back when ready?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What if a new network comes tomorrow and they think they need 7 years to really start getting data transfer flowing. How do we incorporate them?
they also would get vetted and calculations to see potential out comes and then there would be a vote in or not (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 9:47 AM
8 years is a long time to sustain a project not having usage?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Think it was 1,400
iot is 40 all others is 7
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What if a new network comes tomorrow and they think they need 7 years to really start getting data transfer flowing. How do we incorporate them?
This will never happen again. IOT is a one-off. Community agreed to this in HIP 51
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
they also would get vetted and calculations to see potential out comes and then there would be a vote in or not (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:49 AM
And who does that vetting? How do we get people to agree to give up their piece of the pie?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
And who does that vetting? How do we get people to agree to give up their piece of the pie?
it has to be mutually beneficial
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
This will never happen again. IOT is a one-off. Community agreed to this in HIP 51
ya that too, this makes the most sense all factors considered IMO
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
This will never happen again. IOT is a one-off. Community agreed to this in HIP 51
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:50 AM
That’s not what’s being proposed here. This has turned into an ad hoc solution with the expectation of future ad hoc solutions by the others in here
Avatar
Idk what you’re saying. The proposal is pretty straightforward
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:52 AM
There is an expectation of retuning the floors as it’s being proposed
09:52
That won’t actually happen
09:53
There are mechanisms to retune the HNT based on future speculation and network size with the V score and the A score that already exist
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There is an expectation of retuning the floors as it’s being proposed
@ferebee think this is valid should also state that IOT falls to 7 (probably pointless but just a small detail)
Avatar
Unfortunately I have to head out, wish I had time to engage here, but I’ll just leave saying that I don’t think we should try to get this perfect. We need to make something that pleases most people happen ASAP before the Solana transition and that’s the most important thing
💯 4
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:54 AM
The A was proposed to be removed based on technical hurdles that, after the HIP was proposed, turned out to not actually be technical hurdles.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
This will never happen again. IOT is a one-off. Community agreed to this in HIP 51
Community agreed to a A factor that benefited iot and every other subDAO that burned the onboarding fees.
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Unfortunately I have to head out, wish I had time to engage here, but I’ll just leave saying that I don’t think we should try to get this perfect. We need to make something that pleases most people happen ASAP before the Solana transition and that’s the most important thing
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:54 AM
So HIP-51?
09:56
There are two HIPs that solve some of the issues this HIP attempted to solve with a much smaller scope. I believe based on your statements, @rawrmaan , that you would prefer those. (edited)
Avatar
The premise that 3 people on discord who happen to have aligned views suddenly means consensus enough to go to a vote is flawed
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:58 AM
How important is this HIP if 1/3 of the authors are on vacation and don’t care to engage that much here and 1/3 have sent 7 messages in the channel?
Avatar
The bar for the simple HIP69 was orders of magnitude higher
☝️ 2
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The premise that 3 people on discord who happen to have aligned views suddenly means consensus enough to go to a vote is flawed
I think we three are trying to be ojective and our cores do not align by all means spread this and get feed back we are having this conversation in the wide open
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:59 AM
None of you have an economics background or a game theory background
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
None of you have an economics background or a game theory background
source 😉
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think we three are trying to be ojective and our cores do not align by all means spread this and get feed back we are having this conversation in the wide open
You may think that
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:00 AM
Here’s how it works for Jimmy John’s and rocket ships
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
@ferebee think this is valid should also state that IOT falls to 7 (probably pointless but just a small detail)
Of course, IOT would drop to 7 on 1 August 2027, analogous to the prior statement that it would drop to 1 on 1 August 2027. Sorry if I was unclear on that.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There is an expectation of retuning the floors as it’s being proposed
That’s not the intent. I proposed that we could make 7 and 40 chain variables if desired. Chain variables also need a vote to be changed under the Solana architecture. It was in response to the suggestion that perhaps the values might not turn out to be optimal. I’m quite happy to suggest they be hard-coded instead if you think that’s preferable. I don’t know that anybody had a strong preference one way or the other.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:04 AM
I’m not suggesting they be hard coded. Why do you think I’m suggesting they be hard coded?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s not the intent. I proposed that we could make 7 and 40 chain variables if desired. Chain variables also need a vote to be changed under the Solana architecture. It was in response to the suggestion that perhaps the values might not turn out to be optimal. I’m quite happy to suggest they be hard-coded instead if you think that’s preferable. I don’t know that anybody had a strong preference one way or the other.
Who’s going to decide they are not ideal though?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The A was proposed to be removed based on technical hurdles that, after the HIP was proposed, turned out to not actually be technical hurdles.
Actually, we proposed to remove the A factor in the interest of simplicity. It’s true that the technical issue of missing onboarding fees set this entire investigation in motion, but that is not the motivation as such. It just happens to be the case that, for various reasons, HIP-51 might not be optimal as it stands, so we have been searching for a different solution.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Actually, we proposed to remove the A factor in the interest of simplicity. It’s true that the technical issue of missing onboarding fees set this entire investigation in motion, but that is not the motivation as such. It just happens to be the case that, for various reasons, HIP-51 might not be optimal as it stands, so we have been searching for a different solution.
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:05 AM
This solution is objectively less simple
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Who’s going to decide they are not ideal though?
Indeed. It wasn’t my proposal to begin with. I’m quite happy to hard-code them. Just like HIP-51 hard-coded an effective Burn floor of $1,440 for all subDAOs, as I outlined above.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:05 AM
If that’s your intent, simplicity, then you have failed
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m not suggesting they be hard coded. Why do you think I’m suggesting they be hard coded?
If you prefer they be chain variables, I think that’s fine too. I have no strong preference either way.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:06 AM
They will never change. There will be too much debate and nothing with happen
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They will never change. There will be too much debate and nothing with happen
Is that good or bad?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:06 AM
That is bad
Avatar
How would you propose to change the implicit $1,440/month Burn floor defined in HIP-51 then?
Avatar
I don’t like that we’re playing fast and loose with the tokenomics model, just 2 days ago it had to be absolute figured out before migration because it should be fixed and now we’re introducing a bunch of variables that we want to change on the go too?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:07 AM
It’s $30
10:07
The epochs are 24 hours
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s $30
when hip 51 was purposed it was 1440 since epochs at the time were 30 mins... (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:08 AM
30 minute epochs for Dao Utility score was a known issue at the time because of the fluctuations in data usage by the networks
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s $30
That depends on whether you read HIP-51 under the definition of “epoch” that was in force when it was written, or under the definition of “epoch” that will be in force in the new implementation. I think arguments could be made for both points of view. Which is unfortunate in my view.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:08 AM
This was always going to be corrected
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
This was always going to be corrected
What do you mean by that?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:08 AM
It’s also a guard against 1 factor making it 0
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
This was always going to be corrected
right this is that correction...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:09 AM
HIP-77 is that correction
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 10:10 AM
@ferebee do you have a spreadsheet of the latest proposal that i can play with? the 40,7,7 one
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:10 AM
You’re making bad faith arguments that 1 is somehow intended be anything other than removing 0 from the factor
10:11
Like a state channel issue for example
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP-77 is that correction
Do you think HIP-77 considers the fact that depending how we read HIP-55, it either implies a Burn floor of $1,440/month, or it implies a Burn floor of $30/month? If that was considered, I find it surprising that it was not made implicit. I only realized this discrepancy today, after gateholder brought up the issue of what happens to MOBILE at launch with no DC Burn. Congrats to anybody who understood it all along. 🙃
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
@ferebee do you have a spreadsheet of the latest proposal that i can play with? the 40,7,7 one
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16nfr7pj5cyHT7PUAdSHo9TZ0EfBF4KLw95AxCb6G6Gc/edit#gid=0 you would have to add the third 7 to wifi if you want but this is for just the two on the bottom
Sheet1 Emission to miners (HNT),55,890 subDAO Network Data Transfer and Device Count in Epoch X LoRaWAN DC burned (in USD),$500.00,5G DC burned (in USD),$708.33,WiFi DC burned (in USD),$1.00,resevered pie,25%,10%,resevered pie,25%,10% LoRaWAN Devices (#),460,000,5G Devices,3,700,WiFi Devices,1 U...
Avatar
Realistically all the factor does is prevent it goes to 0
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:12 AM
There was always an issue with calculating DC burn on a 30 minute look back. I discussed with Shayon at length since mobile operates in 4 time zones with ebbs and flows whereas IOT operates in 24 and sensors don’t care what time it is
10:13
30 day look back and 24 hour look backs were discussed but then when the epochs were getting changed it made that point moot
Avatar
I gotta drop out again for a bit, the lady is calling dinnertime. Tag me @Max - Just Max if you propose anything actionable.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:15 AM
You can read the channel like everyone else. No one is above anyone here.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16nfr7pj5cyHT7PUAdSHo9TZ0EfBF4KLw95AxCb6G6Gc/edit#gid=0 you would have to add the third 7 to wifi if you want but this is for just the two on the bottom
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 10:17 AM
this one has the floor built in?
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
this one has the floor built in?
where it says hip 80 architecture
10:21
added some notes but any questions just ask
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 10:35 AM
I still rather stick with 51 with a SQRT for V
Avatar
Write it, ask KeithR how easy submitting it was 😉
💯 1
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Write it, ask KeithR how easy submitting it was 😉
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 10:41 AM
i tried, i copied the template and stripped out everying except the V, but i feel like im just plagiarizing (edited)
Avatar
Plagiarizing what? It's a template for a reason
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 10:42 AM
plagiarizing part of hip80
Avatar
You can't plagiarize it because the contributing guidelines say it's now apache 2.0
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:51 AM
I think the square root can wait til the other side so we can have more knowledge of how veHNT there is
10:51
Might wanna do a third or fourth route. Hard to say without numbers
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There are two HIPs that solve some of the issues this HIP attempted to solve with a much smaller scope. I believe based on your statements, @rawrmaan , that you would prefer those. (edited)
I agree with ferebee’s latest proposal as of when you sent this message.
Avatar
Can anyone give me a rundown on why these numbers make sense? I've read that @ferebee's original $75k was based on the protection the A factor gave to IOT, so that's something. These new floor values for MOBILE and IOT seem to have been selected based on some predetermined notion of what is 'good' so I'd like to hear the reasoning behind them (if there is any).
11:23
I think that if we introduce these magic numbers we should have some sound reasoning that goes beyond "fill it in in this excel, it looks nice". It should be based on something, e.g. if you base it on some expectation I'd like to see it. Without it we're just bikeshedding a number based on gut feeling.
☝️ 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 11:28 AM
It just seems like we’re shoe horning a percentage based on incorrect assumptions made and bad data that got spread during the HIP-51 vote
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Can anyone give me a rundown on why these numbers make sense? I've read that @ferebee's original $75k was based on the protection the A factor gave to IOT, so that's something. These new floor values for MOBILE and IOT seem to have been selected based on some predetermined notion of what is 'good' so I'd like to hear the reasoning behind them (if there is any).
The Floor value of 7 for all subDAOs is intended to model the DC Burn Floor implied in the original design of HIP-51. HIP-51 implies a Burn floor of $1,440/month. The Floor of 7 corresponds to a Burn floor of $1,470/month. In addition, based on the models @gateholder has shown, it appears that it provides a good guardrail against the scenario of MOBILE receiving almost no HNT at all during the launch period until Helium Mobile (the MVNO) comes online.
11:35
The Floor value of 40 for IOT, which corresponds to a Burn floor of $48,000/month attributed to IOT, is a compromise between various viewpoints that favor anything between $20,000 and $75,000, based on the models we’ve seen. For the scenarios in my “pink” model (in the post waveform pinned earlier), it delivers a similar distribution to HIP-51.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The Floor value of 7 for all subDAOs is intended to model the DC Burn Floor implied in the original design of HIP-51. HIP-51 implies a Burn floor of $1,440/month. The Floor of 7 corresponds to a Burn floor of $1,470/month. In addition, based on the models @gateholder has shown, it appears that it provides a good guardrail against the scenario of MOBILE receiving almost no HNT at all during the launch period until Helium Mobile (the MVNO) comes online.
For the MOBILE floor: The original HIP51 defines based on epoch, which you say was 30 minutes and is now 24h, let's say we go along with that I have the question why do you multiply the 1 at all, since it was meant to disregard that variable when no burn occurs? I don't think that was the intention at all. The various view points that gave bikeshedded numbers between $20k and $75k. We have $75k based on HIP51's protection but where is the $20k is based on apart from bikeshedding a random magic number somewhere far enough below $75k that 3 people are happy? Perhaps not something that you can answer since you didn't come up with the $20k, but I still think it needs a solid basis apart from we played around a bit and arrived at X.
11:43
That the max(1, ...) wasn't intended to be multiplied at all is further supported by the fact that all the factors have this max(1, ...), even onboarding for which it would make absolutely 0 sense to multiply to longer epochs. (edited)
Avatar
I think the “pink” model shows that $50,000 is somewhat close to the HIP-51 results for the data points modeled. Please check the full sheet, but here for clarity:
11:46
11:47
Where the 2.5% shows the issue if MOBILE doesn’t get a hand with the missing onboarding fees.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That the max(1, ...) wasn't intended to be multiplied at all is further supported by the fact that all the factors have this max(1, ...), even onboarding for which it would make absolutely 0 sense to multiply to longer epochs. (edited)
I don’t understand what you mean by “intended to be multiplied”. Maybe I should explain what I mean by the Burn floor more.
Avatar
"intended to be multiplied"; you increased the max(1, ...) to max(7, ...) because 24*2 = 48 and sqrt(48) is 7. But that scaling doesn't make sense in my opinion since that is not how it was intended.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 11:50 AM
We’re having two different discussions here. Even if the number has the intended impact we think we want it to have today, it doesn’t scale and will need to be reworked at some future date. Historically speaking, we know that’s not a realistic expectation
Avatar
The intention was clearly to disregard a factor by setting it to 1 if it had a 0 value.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
"intended to be multiplied"; you increased the max(1, ...) to max(7, ...) because 24*2 = 48 and sqrt(48) is 7. But that scaling doesn't make sense in my opinion since that is not how it was intended.
HIP-80 is not HIP-51. So HIP-80 does intend to use 7. That has nothing to do with what HIP-51 intended. I don’t understand the comparison.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We’re having two different discussions here. Even if the number has the intended impact we think we want it to have today, it doesn’t scale and will need to be reworked at some future date. Historically speaking, we know that’s not a realistic expectation
Please show your model where you find that it doesn’t scale. I believe it does scale.
Avatar
I don't see why you become so combative even when I'm trying to work things out constructively here.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't see why you become so combative even when I'm trying to work things out constructively here.
I apologize. I honestly don’t understand your argument. I don’t intend to be combative.
Avatar
You specifically said "HIP-51 implies a Burn floor of $1,440/month. The Floor of 7 corresponds to a Burn floor of $1,470/month. In addition, based on the models gateholder has shown" and I'm disagreeing with that fact because I don't think HIP51 implied that burn floor at all. Hence my comment about the max(1, ...) that was multiplied to max(7, ...) due to increased epoch length.
11:53
How I see it is that HIP51 intended to disregard a factor when its value is non-applicable and that doesn't change with a longer epoch length. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We’re having two different discussions here. Even if the number has the intended impact we think we want it to have today, it doesn’t scale and will need to be reworked at some future date. Historically speaking, we know that’s not a realistic expectation
I believe we will never have to change 7 and 40. I’d have to search the upscroll, but I think I was just being accommodating to someone who said what if we have to change the numbers? Well, it’s not impossible. My approach is to pick the best formula we can now. If we find it to be unsuitable later, we can still change it, in principle. I don’t see how that is an argument against trying to find the best solution we can now.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You specifically said "HIP-51 implies a Burn floor of $1,440/month. The Floor of 7 corresponds to a Burn floor of $1,470/month. In addition, based on the models gateholder has shown" and I'm disagreeing with that fact because I don't think HIP51 implied that burn floor at all. Hence my comment about the max(1, ...) that was multiplied to max(7, ...) due to increased epoch length.
OK, let me state that a different way.
11:54
HIP-51 does imply some Burn floor. What does that mean? It means that if a subDAO burns zero DC, it is treated as if it did burn some DC.
11:56
What is that Burn floor? Assuming the burn did not change over time, then the Burn floor is the amount of DC that a subDAO must burn such that the result with the max(1, x) function is the same as the result we would get if we did not include the max(1, x) function and used x directly.
Avatar
It's difficult we can't ask the original authors, but I'm fairly certain the meaning was to prevent the subDAO score going to 0 if any of their variables went to zero. Because, by applying your logic, we should then also do max(7, ...) for the remaining factors because they would then also imply a staking floor and (the non applicable for HIP80) onboarding floor.
11:57
I think it's flawed logic to say that it implies a burn floor while not applying the same for the staking component.
Avatar
Of course perhaps the formula in HIP-51 is accidental. However, I do believe that the people who developed it (JMF and others) did do modeling to see whether it behaved in a way they thought was reasonable. We can tag and ask him, but I believe he’s under pressure elsewhere at the moment.
Avatar
I don't think accidental is the right word, I just think you're reading something into a feature that was purely to prevent the DAO Utility Score to become 0.
Avatar
Some people here have reasonably suggested, why don’t we forget about HIP-80 and stay with HIP-51. Or use HIP-51 and just change one component. That’s a valid position, and so I think it’s valid to see how HIP-80 compares to HIP-51.
Avatar
e.g. it makes no sense to apply a onboarding floor and that factor also has max(1, ...)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:00 PM
Does @Tushar come around these parts anymore? Think he can easily put this issue to bed that the max 1, … was intended to prevent a 0
Avatar
I feel the max(1, ...) is abused to create a floor that was obviously not intended by HIP51 as shown by the result matching the general comms around the distribution (98% to IOT) at the time.
Avatar
Well, we have two questions here. First, do we prefer the formula of HIP-80 or the formula of HIP-51? And second, both have magic numbers. (Even if 1 isn’t a magic number, $1 is a magic value. We could use some other currency. And “month” is a magic number, and “epoch” is a magic number.) So if we want to change from the formula of HIP-51, and the new formula also has magic numbers, we need to choose them somehow.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:01 PM
Frankly that argument is just grasping at straws
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Does @Tushar come around these parts anymore? Think he can easily put this issue to bed that the max 1, … was intended to prevent a 0
I messaged him that we are discussing details of a possible replacement to the DAO Utility Score, and so far he hasn’t responded.
Avatar
I don't understand that on the one hand we have the $75k to protect IOT for the presumably running start MOBILE will have while also giving MOBILE 10% for just existing. I also wonder why MOBILE is so desperate for 3 months of HNT while it grew without such rewards to where it is now. I feel like the max(1, ...) has been twisted into having meaning just for the sake of carving out that extra 10%.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, we have two questions here. First, do we prefer the formula of HIP-80 or the formula of HIP-51? And second, both have magic numbers. (Even if 1 isn’t a magic number, $1 is a magic value. We could use some other currency. And “month” is a magic number, and “epoch” is a magic number.) So if we want to change from the formula of HIP-51, and the new formula also has magic numbers, we need to choose them somehow.
I find this statement to be correct
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:05 PM
The v factor is a much better mechanism for early subDAOs without the long term liability of a floor
Avatar
A statement with multiple questions can't be "correct" 😂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:06 PM
Like I really appreciate you attempting to solve this problem but this solution isn’t it
Avatar
Avatar
groot
A statement with multiple questions can't be "correct" 😂
im saying we need to choose the numbers since that was the conclusion at the end of his statement 😉
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:07 PM
I’ve been asked to provide alternative solutions rather than just “complaining,” I have done that. Rushing to vote before other options can be debated makes no sense
Avatar
I am personally not vehemently opposed to removing the A factor, but I am 100% opposed against rewarding unonboarded hotspots so I will push that HIP forward regardless. Regarding the max(7, ...) floor, I think it is twisting the max(1, ...) into having meaning because it happens to align with the predetermined 12.5% that was the desired outcome by gateholder.
12:09
And I say twisted into having meaning because it makes no sense for the other 2 variables and those also have the max(1, ...) so assigning meaning to 1 of 3 variables that have a max(1, ...) is just disingenuous. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve been asked to provide alternative solutions rather than just “complaining,” I have done that. Rushing to vote before other options can be debated makes no sense
no offence but I was trying to follow your numbers proposal and I don't see how it solves this and it is multiples more difficult to understand and I don't think it fits the fairness metric better either (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:10 PM
I’m talking about the HIPs that we’re proposed
12:10
That spreadsheet was considered to be the perfect solution for incorporating 5G about a year ago by another one of the authors here
12:11
I was proving a point that ad hoc solutions don’t work and never get passed because there’s too much self interest. Glad you see it my way now.
12:11
Like you’re just proposing a different HIP-37 here. We’ve gone down that road and it didn’t work
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I am personally not vehemently opposed to removing the A factor, but I am 100% opposed against rewarding unonboarded hotspots so I will push that HIP forward regardless. Regarding the max(7, ...) floor, I think it is twisting the max(1, ...) into having meaning because it happens to align with the predetermined 12.5% that was the desired outcome by gateholder.
this has to do with the sinking ship analogy that if it tilts to far to one side it could cause it to capsize, assuming that some percentage of people are staking vehnt for rewards benefit therefore it if people follow the money stream down to under 10% then it could cause a collapse in rewards this can happen to mobile from now til mobile launch and this could happen to IOT in the future (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
this has to do with the sinking ship analogy that if it tilts to far to one side it could cause it to capsize, assuming that some percentage of people are staking vehnt for rewards benefit therefore it if people follow the money stream down to under 10% then it could cause a collapse in rewards this can happen to mobile from now til mobile launch and this could happen to IOT in the future (edited)
My point still stands, something was twisted into having meaning to justify some tertiary goal which is bad faith. I don't really care what other arguments you have when you start from an bad faith argument.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:15 PM
That doesn’t track in this scenario. We’re apportioning gold to different businesses based on their revenue. The underlying gold has no impact on the revenue
Avatar
Avatar
groot
My point still stands, something was twisted into having meaning to justify some tertiary goal which is bad faith. I don't really care what other arguments you have when you start from an bad faith argument.
how am I arguing in bad faith?
Avatar
for starters you just implicitly agreed you twisted the max(1, ...) to mean something to fit your bad analogy.
12:18
The max(1, ...) means nothing, just because it happens to get you to your goal doesn't make it right.
Avatar
I am assuming people did the math as written to come to conclusions, therefore if you algebraically move parts around it creates different variables and out comes I am trying to come to the out come that benefits Helium as a whole. which is the simplified function of hip 51 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
for starters you just implicitly agreed you twisted the max(1, ...) to mean something to fit your bad analogy.
this was brought up in those discussions it actually what clued me into all this (edited)
Avatar
I don't know what you refer to but yes, I did the math and I looked at HIP51 and I don't agree with the conclusion that max(1, ...) means anythings so I therefore also don't agree it needs to go to max(7, ...)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What if we remove the DNTs and allow Mobile to pull from the data transfer bucket for its POC until data starts flowing? This will allow Mobile to earn no more than 30% of the rewards until 2027 this way we protect IOT. I put together a model below. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C8G06_MgFYPrttVKp4KrgKSPalTZ1L8ausymPxnQh6A/edit
Can you update your spreadsheet with the real values as a start, rewards breakdown is wrong https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0020-hnt-max-supply.md#net-emissions
Avatar
Avatar
groot
My point still stands, something was twisted into having meaning to justify some tertiary goal which is bad faith. I don't really care what other arguments you have when you start from an bad faith argument.
Now I’d just like to respond to one point here… My primary investment is in the Helium DAO as a whole, which I would like to succeed. The way we will do that is by growing the Data Transfer of all networks. I have high hopes for MOBILE in the medium term, and I have high hopes for IOT in the long term. Both are important. MOBILE is an established market that burns oodles of data already. IOT is a brand-new market that could burn oodles of data in the future, and if Helium succeeds, it will have an amazing moat protecting us long into the future. I don’t favor one network over the other. I also hope new high-quality subDAOs will join the party. I don’t think I’m acting in bad faith.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Can you update your spreadsheet with the real values as a start, rewards breakdown is wrong https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0020-hnt-max-supply.md#net-emissions
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:22 PM
That’s the HIP-37 spreadsheet
12:22
That was the perfect breakdown at the time
12:23
Haven’t even gone live with mobile and that’s not the case
Avatar
Avatar
groot
i don't see why we need to protect mobile at all given that they will just burn through esims anyway
Here I have been thinking @groot was having a rough week based on the grouchiness of his posts lately. Well, now I am in with him fully. The idea of needing to protect the Mobile subDAO is utter shit. Mobile subDAO doesn't even need PoC in my opinion, let alone protection. The second the spigot is turned on, will be the moment we are happy. 50 cents a gig (with a max of $15 per subscriber) is a lot of money real quick.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Here I have been thinking @groot was having a rough week based on the grouchiness of his posts lately. Well, now I am in with him fully. The idea of needing to protect the Mobile subDAO is utter shit. Mobile subDAO doesn't even need PoC in my opinion, let alone protection. The second the spigot is turned on, will be the moment we are happy. 50 cents a gig (with a max of $15 per subscriber) is a lot of money real quick.
OK… But then it doesn’t hurt, right?
12:28
And remember that there is no firm launch date for Helium Mobile that I’m aware of. (Or did I miss that?) It’s “Soon”.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Now I’d just like to respond to one point here… My primary investment is in the Helium DAO as a whole, which I would like to succeed. The way we will do that is by growing the Data Transfer of all networks. I have high hopes for MOBILE in the medium term, and I have high hopes for IOT in the long term. Both are important. MOBILE is an established market that burns oodles of data already. IOT is a brand-new market that could burn oodles of data in the future, and if Helium succeeds, it will have an amazing moat protecting us long into the future. I don’t favor one network over the other. I also hope new high-quality subDAOs will join the party. I don’t think I’m acting in bad faith.
I am in the other boat I am heavily invested in mobile but I have the same sentiment mobile will be a large revenue generator and will help catapult IOT into top tier performance. both are required for success and they build the start of a great DePIN ecosystem but they are hard to provision completely and changes will need to be made but at this time its hard to guess, but we need to go with the best option in front of us and I believe it sits with this modified version of hip 80
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Now I’d just like to respond to one point here… My primary investment is in the Helium DAO as a whole, which I would like to succeed. The way we will do that is by growing the Data Transfer of all networks. I have high hopes for MOBILE in the medium term, and I have high hopes for IOT in the long term. Both are important. MOBILE is an established market that burns oodles of data already. IOT is a brand-new market that could burn oodles of data in the future, and if Helium succeeds, it will have an amazing moat protecting us long into the future. I don’t favor one network over the other. I also hope new high-quality subDAOs will join the party. I don’t think I’m acting in bad faith.
Never said you did. Nobody here will want a subDAO to succeed at the cost of Helium as a whole failing. But you have a good point, MOBILE is an established market that should have no problem getting data going and as such needs no protection. Let me put it this way, if HIP80 would've came out and said we think some $1500 of floor for all subDAOs is reasonable I would be less disappointed than when the argument is made that it is logical that it is $1500 because the max(1, ...) dictates a data floor which is obviously not what it intended and is a direct consequence of being the means to a predetermined end. Come up with a reasonable argument and I'm game, try to deceive to get your way and I will likely oppose you.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
And remember that there is no firm launch date for Helium Mobile that I’m aware of. (Or did I miss that?) It’s “Soon”.
they said end of may, but they also said we would have pricing by the end of feb... still waiting (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
they said end of may, but they also said we would have pricing by the end of feb... still waiting (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:29 PM
Oh wow. We’re all witnesses to the first time gateholder learned there are delays in Helium.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Never said you did. Nobody here will want a subDAO to succeed at the cost of Helium as a whole failing. But you have a good point, MOBILE is an established market that should have no problem getting data going and as such needs no protection. Let me put it this way, if HIP80 would've came out and said we think some $1500 of floor for all subDAOs is reasonable I would be less disappointed than when the argument is made that it is logical that it is $1500 because the max(1, ...) dictates a data floor which is obviously not what it intended and is a direct consequence of being the means to a predetermined end. Come up with a reasonable argument and I'm game, try to deceive to get your way and I will likely oppose you.
I’m just looking at what HIP-51 does on the one hand, and what the simplest formula is that I can think of on the other hand that does the job, and that doesn’t deviate from HIP-51 more than I can justify.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh wow. We’re all witnesses to the first time gateholder learned there are delays in Helium.
Putting on my moderator hat for a minute, do you feel that adds something productive to the discussion?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I am in the other boat I am heavily invested in mobile but I have the same sentiment mobile will be a large revenue generator and will help catapult IOT into top tier performance. both are required for success and they build the start of a great DePIN ecosystem but they are hard to provision completely and changes will need to be made but at this time its hard to guess, but we need to go with the best option in front of us and I believe it sits with this modified version of hip 80
I think it is pretty clear that you're trying to obtain cover in case your plan backfires.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Putting on my moderator hat for a minute, do you feel that adds something productive to the discussion?
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:32 PM
Yes, I believe it is important to underscore those that have “revolutionary ideas” are really just rehashing old ideas that we’ve litigated and decided were bad. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes, I believe it is important to underscore those that have “revolutionary ideas” are really just rehashing old ideas that we’ve litigated and decided were bad. (edited)
I searched this channel for “revolutionary”, and Discord didn’t come up with anything. I’m certainly not claiming to have come up with anything revolutionary. Is gateholder? I must have missed that.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I’m just looking at what HIP-51 does on the one hand, and what the simplest formula is that I can think of on the other hand that does the job, and that doesn’t deviate from HIP-51 more than I can justify.
I think it's bad to use some convoluted argument on how max(1, ...) should really be max(7, ...) because it suits someone and put it in a HIP. It's basically just gaslighting at this point, like everyone else misunderstood how HIP51 was intended to work. 🤷
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:35 PM
Yes, gateholder figured out a plug to get 12.5%.
12:35
Iconic math wizardry
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think it's bad to use some convoluted argument on how max(1, ...) should really be max(7, ...) because it suits someone and put it in a HIP. It's basically just gaslighting at this point, like everyone else misunderstood how HIP51 was intended to work. 🤷
I don’t think max(1, x) should be max(7, x). I think max(7, x) is a reasonable answer to questions we have been discussing here. Not all of those questions were being discussed a year ago, or 18 months, when HIP-51 was being developed.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think it's bad to use some convoluted argument on how max(1, ...) should really be max(7, ...) because it suits someone and put it in a HIP. It's basically just gaslighting at this point, like everyone else misunderstood how HIP51 was intended to work. 🤷
I just think hip 51 was built on some assumptions that are not currently correct, and in order to reform them in a way that still holds the "spirit" of the idea this is the best solution so far...
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I just think hip 51 was built on some assumptions that are not currently correct, and in order to reform them in a way that still holds the "spirit" of the idea this is the best solution so far...
I guess you weren't around if you think that.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:36 PM
But the 40/7 is solving a problem that doesn’t need to be solved. It’s solving a problem that came up from another solution to the onboarding problem
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I guess you weren't around if you think that.
wel for one they assumed onboarding fees that didn't happen
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:37 PM
Solutions to problems that require additional levels of solutions for new problems aren’t good solutions
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I guess you weren't around if you think that.
also it was formed in bull season lots of these points would be mute but market sentiment has changed and also public perception of hellium is down as well both factors not for seen at the time
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But the 40/7 is solving a problem that doesn’t need to be solved. It’s solving a problem that came up from another solution to the onboarding problem
If we don’t need to solve the problems that HIP-80 is trying to solve, then we can stay with HIP-51. Well, if we vote HIP-80 down, then we’ll continue along with HIP-51, so perhaps that is a valid option?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:38 PM
Why is this the HIP you are digging your heels in? If we make you a co author on the other two will you acknowledge there are easier solutions
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t think max(1, x) should be max(7, x). I think max(7, x) is a reasonable answer to questions we have been discussing here. Not all of those questions were being discussed a year ago, or 18 months, when HIP-51 was being developed.
Should've led with that instead of inserting some random convoluted argument that you knew was not true then I wouldn't have to be 'grouchy' as @KeithR describes it 🙃 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
also it was formed in bull season lots of these points would be mute but market sentiment has changed and also public perception of hellium is down as well both factors not for seen at the time
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:39 PM
Noted bull season of July 2022
12:40
The implosion of LUNA 2 months earlier was one of my favorite bull market indicators
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
also it was formed in bull season lots of these points would be mute but market sentiment has changed and also public perception of hellium is down as well both factors not for seen at the time
Market forces are the same for IOT and MOBILE so this is just a convoluted way of saying that you think you deserve more.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Should've led with that instead of inserting some random convoluted argument that you knew was not true then I wouldn't have to be 'grouchy' as @KeithR describes it 🙃 (edited)
I will gladly agree that I am making this up as I go along. I started with HIP-78, because I thought the missing onboarding fees were the central issue. As I spent weeks trying to understand all of this, my perception of the issues changed. It’s still changing today. I’d rather argue about potential solutions based on their merits, than based on my failings as a human being, which are many, I can mention some more if needed.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:41 PM
I don’t think you fail as human
12:41
None of this is personal
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I will gladly agree that I am making this up as I go along. I started with HIP-78, because I thought the missing onboarding fees were the central issue. As I spent weeks trying to understand all of this, my perception of the issues changed. It’s still changing today. I’d rather argue about potential solutions based on their merits, than based on my failings as a human being, which are many, I can mention some more if needed.
I have no interest in attacking you personally so you don't need to pretend you fail as a human. My issue is with the content not the person.
12:42
(I actually think you're great fwiw)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:42 PM
Yea writing HIPs sucks. Glad you took a stab at it
Avatar
Well, I do take it personally if you insinuate that I am inventing some random convoluted argument in bad faith, which is one way of reading your past comments. 😉 I certainly try not to take it personally though. Don’t worry, I’m fine.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think it's bad to use some convoluted argument on how max(1, ...) should really be max(7, ...) because it suits someone and put it in a HIP. It's basically just gaslighting at this point, like everyone else misunderstood how HIP51 was intended to work. 🤷
I can not express how much I agree with @groot here; max (1, ...) is merely there to avoid zero-ing out the entire equation.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, I do take it personally if you insinuate that I am inventing some random convoluted argument in bad faith, which is one way of reading your past comments. 😉 I certainly try not to take it personally though. Don’t worry, I’m fine.
You didn't invent it though, nor said that you did, you merely agreed with it 😉
Avatar
It is a convenient mechanism for helping the IoT subDAO by changing it to n (n being greater than 1). Appreciate the idea; but just keep it honest that we are bastardizing the original intent of the value there.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I can not express how much I agree with @groot here; max (1, ...) is merely there to avoid zero-ing out the entire equation.
Why, though? From that point of view, it would be fine to zero it out. If the DAO Utility Score is zero, then it’s zero, and the subDAO gets no HNT. That’s a valid approach. That’s what happens if the subDAO gets no protection.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:45 PM
By the way I’ve been having this whole discussion using my FreedomFi sim from here. Lots of positives here.
🔥 3
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Why, though? From that point of view, it would be fine to zero it out. If the DAO Utility Score is zero, then it’s zero, and the subDAO gets no HNT. That’s a valid approach. That’s what happens if the subDAO gets no protection.
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:45 PM
It shouldn’t get 0 based on a temporary state channel outage
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Why, though? From that point of view, it would be fine to zero it out. If the DAO Utility Score is zero, then it’s zero, and the subDAO gets no HNT. That’s a valid approach. That’s what happens if the subDAO gets no protection.
Let me put it this way: If you think it should be scaled, why did you not scale the veHNT part?
Avatar
With the roof closed, no less!
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Let me put it this way: If you think it should be scaled, why did you not scale the veHNT part?
I don’t understand the question.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
With the roof closed, no less!
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:46 PM
And a pouring rain storm. Not sure if that matters though
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It shouldn’t get 0 based on a temporary state channel outage
Why not?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Why, though? From that point of view, it would be fine to zero it out. If the DAO Utility Score is zero, then it’s zero, and the subDAO gets no HNT. That’s a valid approach. That’s what happens if the subDAO gets no protection.
right the "1" has an effect on the equation this is merly solving for that and noting that just putting a 1 allowed for some bad scenarios to exist ironically for both IOT and MOBILE
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t understand the question.
The max(1, ...) that was scaled for epoch duration on the D factor, why did you not scale it on the V factor?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:46 PM
Because there was data, it just didn’t get reported in time
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The max(1, ...) that was scaled for epoch duration on the D factor, why did you not scale it on the V factor?
The V factor is independent of epoch duration. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Because there was data, it just didn’t get reported in time
If that’s a concern, perhaps we should use moving averages? I dimly recall discussions about that, but as I recall it was thought that because now an epoch is a day, that’s enough averaging.
12:48
Bit beside the point though IMO.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If that’s a concern, perhaps we should use moving averages? I dimly recall discussions about that, but as I recall it was thought that because now an epoch is a day, that’s enough averaging.
yes 1 day I think is fine I worry though that an outage for one or the other could be problamatic (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If that’s a concern, perhaps we should use moving averages? I dimly recall discussions about that, but as I recall it was thought that because now an epoch is a day, that’s enough averaging.
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:48 PM
I think moving averages allows for new networks with different business models to exist in this ecosystem. That’s something I’m in favor of
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think moving averages allows for new networks with different business models to exist in this ecosystem. That’s something I’m in favor of
I’d say that’s out of scope here, but I also think that’s something that can easily stand on its own as a separate HIP. I can certainly imagine voting for that.
Avatar
@gateholder , just for the record: "Most importantly, this model gives us a framework to add new DNPs in the future without having to design reward splits on an ad-hoc basis. It is critical to note that if a subDAO is found to be artificially inflating core metrics to manipulate the DAO utility score, that subDAOs HNT reserves can be slashed via governance at the Helium Network layer."
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:51 PM
Oh I agree it’s out of scope here. Just saying, I agree moving averages is better
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think moving averages allows for new networks with different business models to exist in this ecosystem. That’s something I’m in favor of
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 12:52 PM
In the data world people are billed for 95 percentile for usage maybe that applies here so 0 still pays out? And peaks aren't over represented
Avatar
Avatar
groot
@gateholder , just for the record: "Most importantly, this model gives us a framework to add new DNPs in the future without having to design reward splits on an ad-hoc basis. It is critical to note that if a subDAO is found to be artificially inflating core metrics to manipulate the DAO utility score, that subDAOs HNT reserves can be slashed via governance at the Helium Network layer."
I’m totally in favor of not designing ad-hoc reward splits for future subDAOs. Is I’ve stated here before, I think leaving the Floor parameter at 7 permanently and at 40 temporarily for IOT for reasons stated elsewhere, is a good long-term solution based on all we currently know.
Avatar
I ain't dying on the hill arguing against the amount of the floor for IoT. While I would prefer zero, if it is decided to be greater than zero, then "whatever". As low as possible please. IoT has enough protections built in. Referencing @AndrewsMD point earlier, as soon as the "flywheel" kicks in again, no one will be complaining about anything.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
In the data world people are billed for 95 percentile for usage maybe that applies here so 0 still pays out? And peaks aren't over represented
I look forward to reading multiple viewpoints on the correct style of moving average, without having a strong personal opinion.
partyparrot 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I ain't dying on the hill arguing against the amount of the floor for IoT. While I would prefer zero, if it is decided to be greater than zero, then "whatever". As low as possible please. IoT has enough protections built in. Referencing @AndrewsMD point earlier, as soon as the "flywheel" kicks in again, no one will be complaining about anything.
with the floor at 0 there will be no protections though?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:54 PM
A floor of 7 allows dead subDAOs to continue to earn
12:54
If Pollen was a subDAO it would still be extracting 12.5% of the HNT
Avatar
Avatar
groot
@gateholder , just for the record: "Most importantly, this model gives us a framework to add new DNPs in the future without having to design reward splits on an ad-hoc basis. It is critical to note that if a subDAO is found to be artificially inflating core metrics to manipulate the DAO utility score, that subDAOs HNT reserves can be slashed via governance at the Helium Network layer."
like I said I didn't completely agree with hip 51 TBH on that note this is just a value statement while the sentiment is good I think it still suffers from SSTO folly doesn't mean its not possible just I don't bet on longshots
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
like I said I didn't completely agree with hip 51 TBH on that note this is just a value statement while the sentiment is good I think it still suffers from SSTO folly doesn't mean its not possible just I don't bet on longshots
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:55 PM
You don’t bet on long shots?
12:55
Wtf is helium mobile?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
with the floor at 0 there will be no protections though?
There are plenty of other inherent protections. Mostly I am stuck on that IoT has already claimed most of the HNT. Anyone that is working on IoT knows it is a long-play game. And like more data via mobile usage, it too is inevitable.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
like I said I didn't completely agree with hip 51 TBH on that note this is just a value statement while the sentiment is good I think it still suffers from SSTO folly doesn't mean its not possible just I don't bet on longshots
The consensus agreed so now you need to accept it and not try to backdoor some shenanigans into it.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
There are plenty of other inherent protections. Mostly I am stuck on that IoT has already claimed most of the HNT. Anyone that is working on IoT knows it is a long-play game. And like more data via mobile usage, it too is inevitable.
That's a fair argument, so open and honest too, loving it.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
A floor of 7 allows dead subDAOs to continue to earn
You have a solid point here Max.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That's a fair argument, so open and honest too, loving it.
People are being impatient with IoT. It is inevitable. Everyone wants greater situational awareness. Inexpensive sensors that are inexpensive to run will win.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
People are being impatient with IoT. It is inevitable. Everyone wants greater situational awareness. Inexpensive sensors that are inexpensive to run will win.
Plus the community outside of Helium, already thinks that Amazon Sidewalk is gonna destroy Helium IoT. I got a question about this just today. (edited)
Avatar
Good business is a return of three years on your hardware. People are freaking out that they aren't winning after three months; it is crazy.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The consensus agreed so now you need to accept it and not try to backdoor some shenanigans into it.
im not trying to subvert it and if we vote on it then I will abide with the results
Avatar
I still think the max(7, ...) is ridiculous and am unlikely to be convinced since it is basically all negatives to save MOBILE 3 months in the case the timelines slip. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:58 PM
That’s not really new though. Amazon sidewalk might be fine in the suburbs but it’s not great for a bunch of other applications
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That’s not really new though. Amazon sidewalk might be fine in the suburbs but it’s not great for a bunch of other applications
Agreed
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
im not trying to subvert it and if we vote on it then I will abide with the results
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 12:59 PM
That’s big of you to abide by the wishes of 96.64% of the votes
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That’s big of you to abide by the wishes of 96.64% of the votes
hip 80
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 1:00 PM
Oh so only the HIPs you like.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If Pollen was a subDAO it would still be extracting 12.5% of the HNT
@ferebee, this is a valid point. More thought needs to go into this.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh so only the HIPs you like.
this goes for all hips... but that doesn't stop me from trying to change it for the better
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
@ferebee, this is a valid point. More thought needs to go into this.
We should just drop the max(7, ...), it provides no benefit other than some short term security
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
@ferebee, this is a valid point. More thought needs to go into this.
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 1:01 PM
This is kinda my main point with arbitrary numbers. It just creates more problems later.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
@ferebee, this is a valid point. More thought needs to go into this.
the reality is it would have been slashed but those same protections to need to exist for all subDAOs so they can cut dead weight... I brought this up that there might need to be an emergency hip process that can take decisive actions like bad sub DAO's
👆 1
Avatar
Why would we opt to do by governance what we can do by protocol
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Why would we opt to do by governance what we can do by protocol
protocols at the end of the day get played at least to some degree, the gaming system of helium should have taught you that 😉
Avatar
Because people are infallible? 🫠
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 1:07 PM
You want to emit and slash?
13:07
What is your definition of a dead network?
13:08
Given the current facts, there is an argument that the Pollen subDAO should still receive its tokens
Avatar
I think when we drop the max(7, ...) it is automatic right?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If Pollen was a subDAO it would still be extracting 12.5% of the HNT
Oh FFS. Where do you get these numbers? Per HIP-80:
13:09
Avatar
theoretically you could still delegate to it but that wouldn't be smart.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Oh FFS. Where do you get these numbers? Per HIP-80:
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 1:09 PM
Gateholder kept going off about 12.5%
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Gateholder kept going off about 12.5%
Yes. And that is why we didn’t go with gateholder’s original model.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What is your definition of a dead network?
something that can no longer help the network as a whole simplistic but haven't completely given thought to how to proceed with that TBH
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 1:10 PM
Solutions that bring more problems
Avatar
You give the dead networks the same $1500 as starting networks just joining, that's dumb.
Avatar
gateholder proposed to reserve a share of HNT emissions as “basic income”, to be distributed among. That is not what we are now proposing, including gateholder. Instead, we propose Floor = 7 for all subDAOs. That does not include a 12.5% guarantee.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Gateholder kept going off about 12.5%
that was just my best guess at avoiding capsizing I stated the range for 25-10% in my models
Avatar
have you ever been at sea? (because I honestly think it's a terrible analogy) (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 1:13 PM
I haven’t really understood it either
13:13
Why is 12.5% a good number? What if there’s 10 networks, should they each get 12.5%?
13:14
Is the thought that we can’t scale beyond a certain point because if a subDAO earns less than gateholders number it will capsize the entire boat?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
have you ever been at sea? (because I honestly think it's a terrible analogy) (edited)
its called the free surface effect its one of the most dangerous forces at sea
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Gateholder kept going off about 12.5%
Listen up. The proposal in HIP-80 is: Everybody gets a D Floor of at least 7. Check the pink model. If MOBILE is doing $400K, the D value of MOBILE is 115.47 vs. 7 for “Pollen” and 40 for IOT. 7/(7+40+115.47) = 4.3%. And if MOBILE is doing more, “Pollen”’s D factor is less. And maybe the veHNT delegated to “Pollen” will be rather less, too. Bringing it under 1%? 0.1%?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
its called the free surface effect its one of the most dangerous forces at sea
That you run out of DNT? Doubt it Troll
Avatar
THERE IS NO 12.5% in HIP-80. That was a suggestion by gateholder to a problem he had identified, and we discussed it, and as a result propse the Floor values of 7, and 40. HIP-80 DOES NOT PROPOSE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Why is 12.5% a good number? What if there’s 10 networks, should they each get 12.5%?
because veHNT rewarding is an inverted logarithmic function
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
THERE IS NO 12.5% in HIP-80. That was a suggestion by gateholder to a problem he had identified, and we discussed it, and as a result propse the Floor values of 7, and 40. HIP-80 DOES NOT PROPOSE UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.
Well it does kind of though, by proposing a $1500 for all subDAOs.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 1:17 PM
It’s the same flawed concept though. Just without saying the intended result is 12.5%
Avatar
Just not at all 12.5%*
13:20
$1500 (= +- 7) a month is 3000GB right? Are we really thinking that we won't beat that with MOBILE? I sure hope not.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
$1500 (= +- 7) a month is 3000GB right? Are we really thinking that we won't beat that with MOBILE? I sure hope not.
depending on how long it takes for e-sims to come back up and when helium mobile launches im not sure
Avatar
You can live without it until that happens (edited)
13:24
Pretending MOBILE will capsize without 12.5% HNT on day 1 is just silly
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Pretending MOBILE will capsize without 12.5% HNT on day 1 is just silly
it will be weeks possibly months...
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s the same flawed concept though. Just without saying the intended result is 12.5%
Look, you have said you wanted an attractive proposition for new subDAOs. I support that. The situation we currently have is that since nobody is generating any revenue, the pie is small. To make it attractive, we are currently offering a sizeable piece of the pie to MOBILE, and to any other new subDAO that we approve. Note that MOBILE can, in theory, perfectly well fork away from Helium DAO, just like a new network can decline to join Helium DAO. Not saying that is likely. However, once we have reached a level of success, and the pie is larger ($1M monthly revenue for example), the launch bonus to a new subDAO is smaller. For example, 4%. Is that too much? I don’t really think so, as the veHNT delegation will not be equal between a subDAO earning $1M revenue and one earning zero revenue.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
@ferebee, this is a valid point. More thought needs to go into this.
As I just posted, that is completely false…
Avatar
Avatar
groot
We should just drop the max(7, ...), it provides no benefit other than some short term security
My solution was much simpler. Just drop the IoT floor to $25,000/mo for 4 years, but that didn’t seem to get much traction. We need to find a way to reach consensus and simultaneously mitigate risks.
13:51
@Max - Just Max & @groot, where are you willing to compromise?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
As I just posted, that is completely false…
I need to run those numbers myself. I need to see it 🙂
Avatar
You don’t need my compromise on anything though, I’m just a voice like everyone else. At the end of the day hnt weighted vote is what you need to convince (and valerie 🤭)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You don’t need my compromise on anything though, I’m just a voice like everyone else. At the end of the day hnt weighted vote is what you need to convince (and valerie 🤭)
But it would be nice to have
13:54
And healthy.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 1:55 PM
Part of the issue is the rush to pass sweeping changes to solve the problem of onboarding
13:56
Breaking it up and tackling the needs before the migration makes sense. I’m not sure if anything needs to be rushed pre-migration though
13:57
Otherwise it just gets lumped into a whole bunch of other HIPs like 77 that people are told to vote through pre-migration
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
But it would be nice to have
At some point I started questioning why the HIP51 formula that was thought out over months needs to change at 2 weeks notice.
thinkies 1
Avatar
waveform gave us notice in October that we had issues. Nobody did any work on that… Also nobody did the work to understand the other issues. Bad, bad JMF for waiting so long to reexamine the V factor. I’m glad he did.
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:09 PM
The issue was the onboarding fee. The mobile subDAO had multiple discussions and the prevailing thought was, fine we’ll take our 0.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The issue was the onboarding fee. The mobile subDAO had multiple discussions and the prevailing thought was, fine we’ll take our 0.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/05/2023 2:09 PM
Yeah, no way
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:09 PM
Adding a minimum onboard fee solves that problem
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
waveform gave us notice in October that we had issues. Nobody did any work on that… Also nobody did the work to understand the other issues. Bad, bad JMF for waiting so long to reexamine the V factor. I’m glad he did.
Maybe people didn’t do the work because they assumed they didn’t need to because they agreed with HIP51 though.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
At some point I started questioning why the HIP51 formula that was thought out over months needs to change at 2 weeks notice.
That’s why we’re trying to change as little as possible. E. g., HIP-51 has an implicit Burn floor for all subDAOs of $1,440. The “7” in HIP-80 is a Burn floor of $1,470. That is intentional.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:10 PM
The implicit burn floor is $30 per month or $365 per year (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Adding a minimum onboard fee solves that problem
HIP-80 specifies a minimum onboard fee of $5.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:11 PM
Correct. That solves the problem without any added complexities
Avatar
I’m trying to get PR #610 merged ASAP, which contains the updated factors.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s why we’re trying to change as little as possible. E. g., HIP-51 has an implicit Burn floor for all subDAOs of $1,440. The “7” in HIP-80 is a Burn floor of $1,470. That is intentional.
I refuse to acknowledge that 51 has an implicit burn floor of 1440. The burn floor is 1 per epoch, so 30 at best. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The implicit burn floor is $30 per month or $365 per year (edited)
The implicit burn floor as of the writing of HIP-51 was $1,440.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:12 PM
In that month there was also $25,000 worth of IOT data
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The implicit burn floor as of the writing of HIP-51 was $1,440.
I think you’re gaslighting. There is no such floor.
14:16
Repeating it doesn’t make it true
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:18 PM
Even if it was, based on the numbers at the time that was about 5% of the total data usage. The correlates to about $84 per month today
Avatar
You can put the floor at 7, no problem. I don’t agree, but that’s another story. Don’t pretend it was in HIP51 though
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Otherwise it just gets lumped into a whole bunch of other HIPs like 77 that people are told to vote through pre-migration
I support HIP77. And I would increase my vote if needed. I don’t see an issue with it, and it seems so far that the community is ok with it too. But we will see. Things change around here 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I support HIP77. And I would increase my vote if needed. I don’t see an issue with it, and it seems so far that the community is ok with it too. But we will see. Things change around here 🙂
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:19 PM
I think 77 is fine. Just a lot of stuff going on at the moment and being rushed through so we should save the rush votes for the things that are actually critical (edited)
Avatar
I am not gaslighting. The formula proposed in HIP-51, using the definition of “epoch” in force at the time, treated all subDAOs exactly that way, as if they were burning a minimum of $1,440/month. That’s what the modeling, which was done at the time, was based on. It’s a separate discussion how to deal with the change in epoch length from 30 minutes to 24 hours.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:20 PM
Again, it was clearly overlooked because of the amount of DC burn for IOT at the time.
14:21
We now know that was just people recycling data credits into HNT (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Again, it was clearly overlooked because of the amount of DC burn for IOT at the time.
“Clearly” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I am not gaslighting. The formula proposed in HIP-51, using the definition of “epoch” in force at the time, treated all subDAOs exactly that way, as if they were burning a minimum of $1,440/month. That’s what the modeling, which was done at the time, was based on. It’s a separate discussion how to deal with the change in epoch length from 30 minutes to 24 hours.
You’re trying to push an alternate reality based on a convoluted and untrue argument, basically the definition.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:22 PM
It’s also like we’re trying to rewrite history for the intent in discussions we were all there for
Avatar
That’s what makes it so annoying, we were all there, we all knew what was said and intended
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
A floor of 7 allows dead subDAOs to continue to earn
Thinking about this further, are there no protections against bad actors in past HIPs?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Thinking about this further, are there no protections against bad actors in past HIPs?
Didn’t need to, the formula had no protections so your score would go to 1 so you’d get essentially nothing (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:24 PM
There is slashing for incorrectly reporting VDA numbers and (I’d assume) using your own DNT as currency
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Didn’t need to, the formula had no protections so your score would go to 1 so you’d get essentially nothing (edited)
So then Max’s comment was just being fearful without substance?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
So then Max’s comment was just being fearful without substance?
No, because HIP80 changes it all
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:25 PM
No, there was no floor, I’m talking about in a 7 floor scenario.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Didn’t need to, the formula had no protections so your score would go to 1 so you’d get essentially nothing (edited)
Again, “would go to 1” has a meaning in the context of the parameters as they existed when the formula was written. The same formula, applied in the context of current parameters, has a different meaning. If I had understood that much earlier, I might have proposed adjusting parameters to deal with just that one particular thing.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
No, because HIP80 changes it all
I am just trying to play catch up and be clear. It’s been a crazy day. Are you saying that if HIP80 passes, we risk having dead subDAO’s draining HNT in perpetuity?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:27 PM
Yes
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I am not gaslighting. The formula proposed in HIP-51, using the definition of “epoch” in force at the time, treated all subDAOs exactly that way, as if they were burning a minimum of $1,440/month. That’s what the modeling, which was done at the time, was based on. It’s a separate discussion how to deal with the change in epoch length from 30 minutes to 24 hours.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/05/2023 2:27 PM
Tbh, at that point it was not foreseen we would go to Solana. So counting from 30 minutes per epoch to 1 epoch per 24 hours, is a big stretch.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:27 PM
We also raise the value of that 7 significantly since we remove a factor and blunt the V factor (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I am just trying to play catch up and be clear. It’s been a crazy day. Are you saying that if HIP80 passes, we risk having dead subDAO’s draining HNT in perpetuity?
I’m saying that contrary to 51, HIP80 will not have the score go to 1. Ferebee is going to argue “it’s fine”, but it’s not as good as 51
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:28 PM
51 still rewards dead networks, just less
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Tbh, at that point it was not foreseen we would go to Solana. So counting from 30 minutes per epoch to 1 epoch per 24 hours, is a big stretch.
Well, my argument is that if we are discussing the consequences of HIP-51, it is reasonable to consider them as designed within an environment where epochs were 30 minutes. Which is how I arrive at the statement that “HIP-51 implies a Burn floor of $1,440 as originally written given the parameters of the system at that time”.
Avatar
I think at this point the starting point should be accepting that the authors of HIP51 weren’t stupid, and just removing things will likely have consequences
Avatar
So if I understand Max and Groot correctly, even If HIP80 passes as currently proposed, neither HIP80 or HIP51 has enough protections in place to prevent a bad actor from damaging the network. Do I have that correct at least?
Avatar
So, to take a different perspective. @Max - Just Max, you have argued that the Helium DAO should provide an environment that lets future subDAOs enter the DAO with some expectation of HNT emissions, even when established subDAOs are already burning large amounts of DC. Say $1M/month. What level of HNT emissions do you propose a fresh subDAO should receive at entry?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
So if I understand Max and Groot correctly, even If HIP80 passes as currently proposed, neither HIP80 or HIP51 has enough protections in place to prevent a bad actor from damaging the network. Do I have that correct at least?
HIP51 rewards 1 out of billions, 80 a lot more (some single digit %)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think at this point the starting point should be accepting that the authors of HIP51 weren’t stupid, and just removing things will likely have consequences
HIP51 was “rushed as well”. They knew it was imperfect. We all knew that. We all accepted that adjustments would be needed along the way when we voted it in.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So, to take a different perspective. @Max - Just Max, you have argued that the Helium DAO should provide an environment that lets future subDAOs enter the DAO with some expectation of HNT emissions, even when established subDAOs are already burning large amounts of DC. Say $1M/month. What level of HNT emissions do you propose a fresh subDAO should receive at entry?
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:32 PM
Whatever their relative value is. In that scenario the USD value of HNT is much higher so even if the pie slice is smaller, the value of that slice is higher
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
HIP51 was “rushed as well”. They knew it was imperfect. We all knew that. We all accepted that adjustments would be needed along the way when we voted it in.
51 was the least rushed HIP ever, it took months to get somewhere?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:32 PM
We don’t want to over reward new subDAOs in USD terms either
Avatar
Avatar
groot
51 was the least rushed HIP ever, it took months to get somewhere?
I can agree with “least rushed” 🙂
🤪 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I can agree with “least rushed” 🙂
hip-64: strong contender for least rushed (edited)
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
HIP51 was “rushed as well”. They knew it was imperfect. We all knew that. We all accepted that adjustments would be needed along the way when we voted it in.
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:33 PM
Then those adjustments never came. So making adjustments with the expectation of future adjustments is a bad strategy
14:34
69 for a $5 discount was pretty unrushed too
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Whatever their relative value is. In that scenario the USD value of HNT is much higher so even if the pie slice is smaller, the value of that slice is higher
Well, what do you propose for that? Do you want to set a new rewards floor for each new subDAO?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:35 PM
No, there are plenty of factors that will fluctuate and plugging in floors creates unintended consequences
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
69 for a $5 discount was pretty unrushed too
Esp if you consider changing the entire incentive structure apparently needs to happen in 12 days
Avatar
Here is my point. If the current HIPs don’t adequately protect the network against bad actors, we should focus on a HIP that does just that.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:35 PM
Imagine if this was bitcoin and we set a floor of 5,000 bitcoins in 2013 because it’s only $5,000
Avatar
What does this HIP do that 51 doesn’t?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Here is my point. If the current HIPs don’t adequately protect the network against bad actors, we should focus on a HIP that does just that.
Define “bad actor”. If a subDAO acts in bad faith, we can vote it out. Helium DAO always has that power. It’s just another HIP. subDAOs can be voted out at any time, nothing prevents that. They always have to act in good faith, or they get the boot.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:36 PM
Do people think in terms of bitcoins or the value of those bitcoins
14:37
I think there’s no difference between the two HIPs for bad actors
14:37
The Pollen example made me rethink my position on total onboard burn btw
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Imagine if this was bitcoin and we set a floor of 5,000 bitcoins in 2013 because it’s only $5,000
Where does HIP-80 set a Floor parameter denominated in anything but USD?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:38 PM
You denominate the DC burn in USD which correlates to an HNT floor
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, my argument is that if we are discussing the consequences of HIP-51, it is reasonable to consider them as designed within an environment where epochs were 30 minutes. Which is how I arrive at the statement that “HIP-51 implies a Burn floor of $1,440 as originally written given the parameters of the system at that time”.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/05/2023 2:39 PM
You cannot stretch 30 minute per epoch to 1 day epoch, counting it as 48.
Avatar
As if Tushar would’ve put max(7, …) at a 24h epoch 😂 it’s ridiculous
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:40 PM
I think we can assume Tushar and Shayon put some thought into this
14:41
Like we’re talking about a HIP written by two partners/directors at one of the most well respect crypto VC funds.
Avatar
That should be the basis, several of the errors we encounter (and try to solve with more variables) were handled in the 51 model
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:42 PM
Yes, there are correlations to the sandwich industry, I don’t want to downplay that though
🥪 1
14:42
Same with the boat and rocket launch industries
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Imagine if this was bitcoin and we set a floor of 5,000 bitcoins in 2013 because it’s only $5,000
I agree with a floor of 40 for IoT for 4 years and I agree with a floor of 7 for all subDAOs. What gave me pause was Max sounding an alarm bell that suggested we would have a situation where a bad actor could continually hurt the network. The true protection of the network belongs in a separate HIP all by itself. That way we can protect against a dead project from draining HNT and also protect the integrity of the network. We can’t have a subDAO found to be pushing child porn on our network. These protections belong in a separate HIP.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:43 PM
It’s not bad actors, it’s how do you determine a dead network?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s not bad actors, it’s how do you determine a dead network?
That too. So correction, it’s not only bad actors but dead ones too. Can we agree on that? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:43 PM
Pollen is arguably still alive and would still be syphoning HNT
14:44
There would be a legitimate argument that it shouldn’t be slashed
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Pollen is arguably still alive and would still be syphoning HNT
I think we would of had a vote that day to cut them off
☝️ 2
💯 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:44 PM
Which day?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Pollen is arguably still alive and would still be syphoning HNT
But I would seek to have them leave.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:44 PM
Fisher would have come in and run the pollen dao (edited)
😂 3
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think we would of had a vote that day to cut them off
Exactly.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:45 PM
Like we’re talking about a hypothetical when the opposite happened in real life.
14:45
Can you specific about which day? Because I can tell you what happened after that day
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Fisher would have come in and run the pollen dao (edited)
The community would have to decide that.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:46 PM
They did, they decided to keep running but a private company held the keys
👀 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can you specific about which day? Because I can tell you what happened after that day
That’s just being argumentative. You understand the point. C’mon. Really. What specific day???
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:46 PM
It still emits tokens, they are just devalued
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
That’s just being argumentative. You understand the point. C’mon. Really. What specific day???
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:47 PM
Yes, what’s the line in the sand moment? Because after “the day” there was like a month of negotiations trying to save or fork it
14:47
We can’t determine a “the day”
14:47
We all know it’s dead but it’s still running to this day
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes, what’s the line in the sand moment? Because after “the day” there was like a month of negotiations trying to save or fork it
It’s irrelevant. The point is, the community would have acted to expedite their departure. Are you arguing against that too?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:48 PM
I disagree that would have been the response considering the exact opposite played out in the real world
Avatar
Stockholm syndrome is real
14:49
Combine it with some sunk cost fallacy and you have how Pollen played out
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:50 PM
Then add in the fact that PCN holders would have held HNT and voted against the removal of the subDAO
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We can’t determine a “the day”
“The day” is when 67% of us decide, flip that shrimp. If Pollen comes in and tries to rug the Helium DAO, I’ll be happy to write HIPs booting them out of Helium DAO over and over again until one of them gets a supermajority. Unlike HIP-80, which is unfortunately complicated, that HIP will be very simple. If more than 33% of Helium DAO veHNT holders think Pollen should continue to rug Helium DAO, well, then they should! That much is really not very complicated.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Then add in the fact that PCN holders would have held HNT and voted against the removal of the subDAO
Not more than 33% of veHNT. 😂 (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:52 PM
Yea but then people will argue it’s not dead
14:52
People will abstain from the vote
14:52
Chain link will come in and buy up PCN then buy and stake veHNT to sway the vote in pollens favor
14:52
All things that have literally happened
Avatar
Fact of the matter is, as you like to point out, over 66% of all HNT has already been minted. HNT holders will vote a new subDAO in. All new subDAOs are our guests. And if they misbehave, we will kick them out.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Chain link will come in and buy up PCN then buy and stake veHNT to sway the vote in pollens favor
What does PCN have to do with any of that?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Chain link will come in and buy up PCN then buy and stake veHNT to sway the vote in pollens favor
now there is an analogy that doesn't make any sense 😉
🫡 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:54 PM
They would buy up the distressed DNT then vote in favor of increasing the value of DNT after it doesn’t get booted then dump their DNT or continue to hold it. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
now there is an analogy that doesn't make any sense 😉
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:55 PM
That actually happened. Chain link capital bought up tons of PCN at rock bottom prices hoping to revive it. Like it happened
👀 1
14:56
5,000 votes per HIP, not a huge barrier for a fund to come in and sway the vote in their favor
Avatar
I can share why people have side conversations. When the tone of conversations get so entrenched through opposing views, discourse becomes counter productive. There are good ways to reach consensus and toxic ways in an attempt to reach consensus. I prefer to focus on the good ways. Identity risks/issues, brainstorm solutions, vet the solutions, adjust the solutions, and then reach consensus through analysis and compromise without sacrificing the integrity of the project. In my mind, that has been done so far. But I’m a voice of one. We will only know if the community votes. They are smarter than people think and tend to vote through the FUD.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They would buy up the distressed DNT then vote in favor of increasing the value of DNT after it doesn’t get booted then dump their DNT or continue to hold it. (edited)
They can raise the value of their DNT to infinity. What does that change?
14:58
We vote with veHNT on DAO governance. Not veDNT.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
They can raise the value of their DNT to infinity. What does that change?
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:58 PM
They have an incentive to keep the HNT flowing to the subDAO
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They have an incentive to keep the HNT flowing to the subDAO
How does raising the price of their DNT help with that?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:59 PM
They buy when people think it’s dead, influence the kill vote, then the risk of being booted gets taken out of the market price thereby increasing the value of their token position
Avatar
How do they influence the kill vote by buying DNT though?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 2:59 PM
They buy HNT
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 04/05/2023 2:59 PM
No discussions on buying or selling HNT please!
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They buy when people think it’s dead, influence the kill vote, then the risk of being booted gets taken out of the market price thereby increasing the value of their token position
but they would have to stake for a prolonged period of time
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:00 PM
They buy DNT first, amass a large position, then buy the votes, then sway the vote
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
but they would have to stake for a prolonged period of time
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:01 PM
Yea that’s fine, it doesn’t hurt HNT’s value that much to have a worthless subDAO and provides a pretty quick short term win
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They buy HNT
Good luck with that once Helium DAO is so successful that this enterprise is interesting in the first place.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They buy DNT first, amass a large position, then buy the votes, then sway the vote
Nobody will be able to do this for at least 4 years due to land rush. Quite actually impossible
👆 2
15:01
I’m sure plenty of other things will change between now and then too
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:01 PM
We have no idea how much veHNT will be staked for 4 years
15:02
You’re also falsely assuming everyone votes
Avatar
It will be a lot. Enough to suffocate most new voters
Avatar
Impossible is a strong word to throw around
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We have no idea how much veHNT will be staked for 4 years
You are literally knocking down a straw man horse that has already been beaten to death.
Avatar
Let’s stop talking in circles. No offense to any involved but this conversation has devolved significantly
👆 3
🔥 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:03 PM
And that a PR campaign saying this dao is under new management won’t sway voters to keep it
Avatar
We can always talk in circles about every edge case. Let’s do that in #hip-discussion
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
We can always talk in circles about every edge case. Let’s do that in #hip-discussion
Are you seriously suggesting criticism on a proposal should move out of the proposals channel?🫠
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:04 PM
I was told we’d get rid of bad/dead subDAOs would be very easy. Experience in the space says that won’t be the case
15:04
We just lived through this
15:04
Like this all played out 3 months ago
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Are you seriously suggesting criticism on a proposal should move out of the proposals channel?🫠
I think it’s a fine line between discussing the details of the proposal and bikeshedding. We are currently bikeshedding.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:05 PM
A subDAO no longer continuing to operate isn’t an edge case
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I was told we’d get rid of bad/dead subDAOs would be very easy. Experience in the space says that won’t be the case
If it’s that easy to buy the Helium DAO vote, I will just do that and decide that all the HST belongs to me. Problem solved. Let’s get back to reality here.
15:05
Speaking about criticism of a proposal, as groot mentions: (edited)
15:06
New release of HIP-80 is merged on GitHub. https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/main/0080-simplifying-dao-utility-score.md Changes: – Floor is 40 for IOT (until the fourth halvening) instead of 50. – Floor is 7 for all other subDAOs forever instead of 1. – Onboarding fees are minimum $5 instead of flat $5. subDAOs need to adjust their fees down if desired. – @gateholder is coauthor along with JMF and rawrmaan.
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:06 PM
This is a criticism of the floor of 7
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I think it’s a fine line between discussing the details of the proposal and bikeshedding. We are currently bikeshedding.
No offense, but this whole HIP is bikeshedding. Numbers are being bikeshedded between 3 people, added as author and new bikeshedding for even more authors.
15:06
A floor of 7 was just bikeshedded
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I think it’s a fine line between discussing the details of the proposal and bikeshedding. We are currently bikeshedding.
I reached compromise several hours ago after my base issues were addressed
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:06 PM
You compromised with 2 people who agree with you
15:06
While others were sleeping
Avatar
Oh good, you’re happy so I guess we’re done 🤷
15:07
Not how it works
Avatar
I have been discussing this for over 24 hours at this point...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:07 PM
Oh, wow an entire 24 hours
Avatar
Avatar
groot
A floor of 7 was just bikeshedded
Maybe so, but at least it was actually related to the proposal as it stands, and not trying to fix the whole Helium DAO incentive structure in a way that goes far beyond DAO Utility Score/onboarding fees
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You compromised with 2 people who agree with you
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/05/2023 3:08 PM
To be fair there's under 10 of us here discussing in total
🍿 2
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Maybe so, but at least it was actually related to the proposal as it stands, and not trying to fix the whole Helium DAO incentive structure in a way that goes far beyond DAO Utility Score/onboarding fees
It created a bunch of new problems that required that discussion though, so I guess it wasn’t such a good idea after all
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I have been discussing this for over 24 hours at this point...
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 3:08 PM
i don't think so, i woke up to this. i was still participating at 11:47pm before i went to bed.
Avatar
I can offer to take offense at the point of view that we are bikeshedding here, if that helps.
😂 1
Avatar
Won’t work twice
Troll 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:10 PM
Insane to say that a potential problem will be easily fixed by a mechanism then say that the real world example of that scenario playing out in the opposite direction is bike shedding
Avatar
If 3 people getting their way by bikeshedding and then disallowing everyone else to continue bikeshedding is consensus these days we should probably stop doing HIPs
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:10 PM
Like let’s just go with made up theoretical situation and how we think it’ll play out rather than real world case studies
Avatar
I noticed this almost 48 hours ago and made a point to attend the call to discuss my issues then backed them up with math and examples
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I noticed this almost 48 hours ago and made a point to attend the call to discuss my issues then backed them up with math and examples
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 3:11 PM
what did you notice?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:12 PM
Anyway, I’ll yield the floor so arman can talk down to me even though he agrees with me that we need to make smaller surgical changes
Avatar
What does MCC know about building a tokenomics model anyway
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
what did you notice?
that there exists both negative examples both in the short term of mobile and the long term of IOT and if you familiar with the inverted logrimic function that exists in the VeHNT rewards pool
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Anyway, I’ll yield the floor so arman can talk down to me even though he agrees with me that we need to make smaller surgical changes
Time for small surgical changes is basically up. We’ve fixed the main discrepancies and we need to get this to vote. Happy to continue making improvements in another HIP
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:13 PM
Two HIPs have been proposed that don’t require a complete overhaul
Avatar
And happy to be called out if anyone thinks I’ve been unreasonable
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:14 PM
Governance department at the foundation has yet to create channels or merge with a number
Avatar
Ah ok, I haven’t been around much this week so no doubt I’ve missed some things
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
And happy to be called out if anyone thinks I’ve been unreasonable
abuse of power to be both author and play the role of Fdn member that calls it’s time up and up for a vote, how’s that?
Avatar
And unfortunately have to go once more, but will review other proposals
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:15 PM
Let’s not go crazy. I don’t think he’s trying to push it through because it’s his Hip
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
that there exists both negative examples both in the short term of mobile and the long term of IOT and if you familiar with the inverted logrimic function that exists in the VeHNT rewards pool
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 3:15 PM
no, talk to me like im dumb, what's the problem?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Let’s not go crazy. I don’t think he’s trying to push it through because it’s his Hip
Neither did I but he said he was happy to be called out😂
Avatar
Let me try to remember which proposals we have seen advanced here, apart from HIP-80. By groot and Max, define minimum onboarding fee for all subDAOs to be $5. HIP draft in PR #606. Parts of this are included in new merge of HIP-80. Thank you for the productive discussion of the issue. By groot and Max, consider all “onboarded” devices to be “active” in the context of the A score as used in HIP-51. HIP draft in PR #607. This is not relevant to HIP-80, but would modify HIP-51 if we decide to go with HIP-51. By gateholder, proposal to set aside a percentage of total HNT emissions, to be distributed equally among subDAOs as a form of basic income. After discussion, this was abandoned in favor of a modification to HIP-80 (Floor of 7 for all subDAOs in perpetuity, aside from temporary boost to IOT). Merged in current version of HIP-80. Anything else concrete and actionable? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
abuse of power to be both author and play the role of Fdn member that calls it’s time up and up for a vote, how’s that?
I have nothing to do with the voting process, and I am simply stating my opinion. I’d rather state it in public for everyone to see, I think that’s the right thing to do
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
I have nothing to do with the voting process, and I am simply stating my opinion. I’d rather state it in public for everyone to see, I think that’s the right thing to do
I was janking your chain
Avatar
Chain yanked. Later all (edited)
Avatar
I always do and you always go all in 😂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:17 PM
Nope, I think the latter can wait and the more I think through it may be a bad change (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Let me try to remember which proposals we have seen advanced here, apart from HIP-80. By groot and Max, define minimum onboarding fee for all subDAOs to be $5. HIP draft in PR #606. Parts of this are included in new merge of HIP-80. Thank you for the productive discussion of the issue. By groot and Max, consider all “onboarded” devices to be “active” in the context of the A score as used in HIP-51. HIP draft in PR #607. This is not relevant to HIP-80, but would modify HIP-51 if we decide to go with HIP-51. By gateholder, proposal to set aside a percentage of total HNT emissions, to be distributed equally among subDAOs as a form of basic income. After discussion, this was abandoned in favor of a modification to HIP-80 (Floor of 7 for all subDAOs in perpetuity, aside from temporary boost to IOT). Merged in current version of HIP-80. Anything else concrete and actionable? (edited)
Did you read it? Because your addition does not address it
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Did you read it? Because your addition does not address it
Read what?
Avatar
You said included in the new merge but I don’t think it is
Avatar
I included the sense of your PR #606 in HIP-80 as follows:
15:21
15:21
Did I miss something?
Avatar
Everything but the title
Avatar
How so?
Avatar
It doesn’t give out free onboards nor does it allow rewards without those onboards
👀 1
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
no, talk to me like im dumb, what's the problem?
if mobile has zero data, for a prolonged period of time which it will if the E-sim isn't figured out and the helium mobile launch is delayed. then it might cause it to collapse. or at least stunt growth. then on the other side if mobile after a period of time grows to more than 90% of the data credits it will cause a destabilization the other way so there needs to be guardrails to prevent a rush to one side. hip 51 did not account for everything that has happened since like lack of onboard and the time it has taken to get here
Avatar
Oh, OK. I see what you mean. Well, then I only included part of it, sorry. I wrote the text 5 days ago, before you posted the PR, as you can see from the history, and I also announced the change in the channel here. I don’t agree with the approach that Hotspot owners must burn the $5 retroactively, sorry. I don’t see any real benefit in trying to convince people to burn an extra $5 somehow, in the context of HIP-80, where the onboarding fees are not considered for the Utility Score anyway. It would also require extra development effort, as there currently is no way for them to do that. The missing onboards are mostly of relevance relative to HIP-51, which is why I didn’t reference them. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
abuse of power to be both author and play the role of Fdn member that calls it’s time up and up for a vote, how’s that?
The community makes the decision though. That’s the balance.
Avatar
I think the minimum fee is important in the context of HIP-80 as protection against subDAOs setting their onboarding fee to $0, leaving no protection against nuisance attacks. I had defined a flat fee of $5 previously, which met with opposition here, so I changed it to a minimum based on that feedback. Which is the part of your PR that is relevant to HIP-80 IMO.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:31 PM
Is there any major argument against passing a minimum onboard today then fleshing out the rest post migration?
15:31
Not today today but pre migration
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
The community makes the decision though. That’s the balance.
I was yanking his chain since he so deliberately asked for it
😂 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
if mobile has zero data, for a prolonged period of time which it will if the E-sim isn't figured out and the helium mobile launch is delayed. then it might cause it to collapse. or at least stunt growth. then on the other side if mobile after a period of time grows to more than 90% of the data credits it will cause a destabilization the other way so there needs to be guardrails to prevent a rush to one side. hip 51 did not account for everything that has happened since like lack of onboard and the time it has taken to get here
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 3:32 PM
if its prolong delayed, it'll collapse anyways. i don't think giving a floor helps with that. subdao has to survive on its own merit
👆 1
Avatar
Sorry, I was responding to @groot with my last two posts above if that was unclear to anybody.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
To be fair there's under 10 of us here discussing in total
That’s 80% in favor. Lol. Just kidding:)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Does @Tushar come around these parts anymore? Think he can easily put this issue to bed that the max 1, … was intended to prevent a 0
What is the question?
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
What is the question?
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 3:55 PM
Was the intention of the max(1, …) in the VDA score to create a floor to help subDAOs or to just avoid a single score multiplying every score by 0
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
What is the question?
HIP-80 as currently published introduces a Floor parameter. This is set to 40 (for 4 years) for IOT, and 7 for all other subDAOs as well as for IOT after the 4 year “founder’s bonus” period. The purpose of this is to implement protections for MOBILE (and future new subDAOs) in the short term, when their DC Burn is zero, e. g. before the launch of the Helium Mobile MVNO, and for IOT over a longer period as its network develops, as promised in the discussions leading up to HIP-51. (edited)
15:57
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Was the intention of the max(1, …) in the VDA score to create a floor to help subDAOs or to just avoid a single score multiplying every score by 0
My interpretation was to prevent zeroing out based on one variable
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Click to see attachment 🖼️
This is way simpler
Avatar
It’s been suggested that this use of “magic numbers” for Floor is inappropriate, as the floor of 1 used in HIP-51 was only intended to prevent degenerate cases if DC Burn is zero.
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
What is the question?
Further context from HIP-80 is here:
15:59
💯 1
Avatar
Anyone who can understand Pythagorean’s Theorem can understand this new DAO Utility score. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
What is the question?
Max wants your perspective on HIP80. I would be interested to hear it as well. (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 4:07 PM
we went from figuring out the onboarding fee for mobile to redoing the hip51 formula. just keep it simple and make mobile users pay for the gateway onboarding at $40. cut off rewards for those that didn't pay and if the mobile subdao want things changed, submit the hip after migration.
Avatar
My view is that HIP-51, as written, considering that the length of an epoch time on the Helium blockchain is 30 minutes, provides all subDAOs with a “Burn floor” of $1,440/month, similar to the Burn floor of $1,470 defined in HIP-80 by the value of 7 set for the Floor variable. Others propose that this comparison is invalid, as HIP-51 did not ever intend to provide this type of “Burn floor”, and the formula given in HIP-51 should be reinterpreted under the new epoch length of 1 day after implementation of HIP-70, such that HIP-51, under that interpretation, would give a Burn floor of $30/month. This is a tangential argument. I think HIP-80 can stand on its own merits, which are, simplicity, and reasonable results in modeling like this. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1092738896971972609 Where the Floor parameter of 40 for IOT corresponds to the pink chart with an IOT “Burn floor” of $50,000. Happy to explain whatever is unclear.
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
we went from figuring out the onboarding fee for mobile to redoing the hip51 formula. just keep it simple and make mobile users pay for the gateway onboarding at $40. cut off rewards for those that didn't pay and if the mobile subdao want things changed, submit the hip after migration.
As Brainstormer says, the alternative to HIP-80 is to keep the formula from HIP-51 and find a different solution for the missing onboarding fees that have not been burned by the MOBILE Hotspots. Note that HIP-80 also introduces a square root on the V factor, delegated veHNT, as recommended by JMF. We don’t currently have a competing proposal to HIP-80 that would introduce this modification to V.
alwaysthinking 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Was the intention of the max(1, …) in the VDA score to create a floor to help subDAOs or to just avoid a single score multiplying every score by 0
The intention at the time was avoid a single zero sending the whole function to zero. However I don’t know that the intention at the time of writing 51 needs to be upheld. if the community wants HIP 80 everyone can evaluate it on its own merits (edited)
🤯 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
To be fair there's under 10 of us here discussing in total
Frightening isnt it
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
To be fair there's under 10 of us here discussing in total
😆 3
Avatar
I was just considering which ghost/zombie emoji to post.
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
The intention at the time was avoid a single zero sending the whole function to zero. However I don’t know that the intention at the time of writing 51 needs to be upheld. if the community wants HIP 80 everyone can evaluate it on its own merits (edited)
That’s enough for me. Thanks Tushar:)
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Frightening isnt it
I suspect that there are community members who watch, read, draw their own conclusions and then vote. Why get caught up in emotion when you can sit back and draw one’s own conclusions? Perhaps I should do more of this. (edited)
👍 1
👆 1
🍿 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I suspect that there are community members who watch, read, draw their own conclusions and then vote. Why get caught up in emotion when you can sit back and draw one’s own conclusions? Perhaps I should do more of this. (edited)
What I mean really by that is that the number of people trying to resolve how everyones earnings are going to be for the next year or more is a lot less than 1% of the amount of people who will turn up in the discord complaining that they "Helium" did something to reduce their rewards again. (edited)
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
What I mean really by that is that the number of people trying to resolve how everyones earnings are going to be for the next year or more is a lot less than 1% of the amount of people who will turn up in the discord complaining that they "Helium" did something to reduce their rewards again. (edited)
There is that. There will always be that 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
What I mean really by that is that the number of people trying to resolve how everyones earnings are going to be for the next year or more is a lot less than 1% of the amount of people who will turn up in the discord complaining that they "Helium" did something to reduce their rewards again. (edited)
thats just a given at this point... we need to funnel people here to get at least a base line understanding (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
thats just a given at this point... we need to funnel people here to get at least a base line understanding (edited)
Some people only care about their own interests. Unavoidable
👍 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 5:23 PM
if they don't read the hips, having them here doesn't help
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
if they don't read the hips, having them here doesn't help
we ll as long as its given in bite size chunks i think the avg person could at least take the time to get the gist of it...
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/05/2023 5:25 PM
there's a lot to digest
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
we ll as long as its given in bite size chunks i think the avg person could at least take the time to get the gist of it...
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 5:29 PM
“Everyone is dumber than me” attitude is not something we should be perpetuating here.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
That’s enough for me. Thanks Tushar:)
Well Tushar has said what seemed obvious to me (1,x) was chosen so that we didnt have 0 multpliers. Its extrapolation to be a floor value is a very interesting concept, but doesnt work for me. Having a dead cat subDAO still turning over because of a floor of 7.... down with that sort of thing. Why do we need a (1,x) anyway for a HIP with no A factor? (a) To stop there being no HNT distribution to a subDAO till some veHNT is delegated? (b) To account for network failures where data transfer could stop for an epoch. A lot less likely now with 24 hour epochs vs 30 min ones. (a) is really only going to happen in the first epoch or two of the Solana migration or the first epoch of a new subdao. (b) We can assume that the data path functionality is unlikely to go down for more than a few days so rather than a floor do 3 or 7 day averaging as has been mentioned as an option. So I come down to still thinking of a decreasing (over time) multiplier of the DC burn, but can see the advantages a floor value does have over this, if IOT does a cliff growth one day. It is hard to come up with a solution that has to account for two unknown dates (when IOT starts to hit a value pointin DCs, when MOBILE hits a value point in DCs) and at unknown but nearly predictable liner, exponentional or cliff based growth rates. Plus an unknown emotional investment parameter of veHNT that is also based on the above.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
“Everyone is dumber than me” attitude is not something we should be perpetuating here.
total mischaracterization
17:40
the problem is not intelligence it is time
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I suspect that there are community members who watch, read, draw their own conclusions and then vote. Why get caught up in emotion when you can sit back and draw one’s own conclusions? Perhaps I should do more of this. (edited)
Can attest to this. Plenty of reading before voting 🙂
👍 2
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
we ll as long as its given in bite size chunks i think the avg person could at least take the time to get the gist of it...
its true that hips can be a bit overwhelming. time and time again we see people come in to the discord asking for a youtube explainer, or "what should i vote for" etc.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
its true that hips can be a bit overwhelming. time and time again we see people come in to the discord asking for a youtube explainer, or "what should i vote for" etc.
I get that all the time 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
“Everyone is dumber than me” attitude is not something we should be perpetuating here.
The polarizing comments are counterproductive. He said nothing of the sort. It’s disingenuous at best. Truth be told, there will always be various levels of sophistication. I include myself in this calculus. I like to think that I’m educated. Lord knows I have been in school long enough. But I learn all the time from people who have never even gone to college. I learn from you. I learn from the collective strengths and weaknesses of this community. There is no value in making this claim like he is disparaging others. C’mon. Lighten up.
Avatar
multiverse_Elmo 04/05/2023 7:21 PM
I feel like that comment was targeted towards me...cause I am dumber than everyone here. That's why I silently read and watch all the smart people discuss theorems and formulas. But I am also excited to see some smart people debate and discuss...and silently glad I don't work with some of you 🙃 too much patience needed or you might get my job, but thank you for engaging here. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
so back to @Max - Just Max 's comment for a moment because im not sure it was answered: Is there any major argument against passing a minimum onboard today then fleshing out the rest post migration?
Avatar
well when it comes to land rush and delegation I view it as essential and also solving the mobile 0 data and 0 onboard in hip 51 , we either need to pass hip 80 or pass a min onboard for gateways for MOBILE
👍 1
Avatar
I'm reading through this and I can't find enough consensus. there are several suggestions still running around: - Max's above - Minimum onboarding fees for Mobile - Removing the A factor - No rewards to unonboarded hotspots - Removing the 75k month for IOT and adding a 25% reserve that is split evenly between IOT and MOBILE - Debate on the preference of the formula of HIP-80 or the formula of HIP-51 I may not have all of them here How can we move to resolve this? We are getting very very close to the April 18th deadline and need to move to a vote. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
valerie
I'm reading through this and I can't find enough consensus. there are several suggestions still running around: - Max's above - Minimum onboarding fees for Mobile - Removing the A factor - No rewards to unonboarded hotspots - Removing the 75k month for IOT and adding a 25% reserve that is split evenly between IOT and MOBILE - Debate on the preference of the formula of HIP-80 or the formula of HIP-51 I may not have all of them here How can we move to resolve this? We are getting very very close to the April 18th deadline and need to move to a vote. (edited)
I support the addition that @ferebee made with lowering the floor of IOT to 40 and all other subDAO's to 7
👍 2
20:42
so you can scratch the 25%
👍 1
Avatar
sweeeet. were closer lol
Avatar
lol lets get a temp check then...
Avatar
at least we have confirmation that, no matter how many times ferebee and gateholder repeated it, the $1440 floor that led to the factor 7 doesn’t exist. (edited)
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
at least we have confirmation that, no matter how many times ferebee and gateholder repeated it, the $1440 floor that led to the factor 7 doesn’t exist. (edited)
I am just saying the math works out well this way
Avatar
Sure you do, all adds up to 12.5%
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Sure you do, all adds up to 12.5%
well if you go back and read what I said when I first purposed the 25% I said a range between 10-25% I just happen to think 25% was best but that I was flexible, can you please stop making straw man arguments?
Avatar
You went out to find a number between 10 and 25 and used a convoluted (and now proven to be false) argument. Kept repeating it in the hope people around at the time would believe that that was actually the reason while everyone there knew it wasn’t.
21:00
If only you could’ve just said I want 12.5% because I’m afraid my investment backfires. But no, you chose to gaslight everyone there for HIP51 into believing that they somehow misunderstood HIP51.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You went out to find a number between 10 and 25 and used a convoluted (and now proven to be false) argument. Kept repeating it in the hope people around at the time would believe that that was actually the reason while everyone there knew it wasn’t.
proven false? what's false about what I have said? I have stated my bias several times (its in the call) its even on my signature... just like IOT is on yours. no gas lighting, just facts and information and effort, I have supported everything I have said I have modified my position when presented with evidence I have posted 250 times here, done tons of research and extrapolation to determine the best growth rate, fairness, and simplicity. the 3 main tenants in order. period (edited)
Avatar
That’s not what the icon means 🫠
21:14
Proven false: $1440 floor intended by hip 51 so max(7, …) is justified
Avatar
Avatar
valerie
I'm reading through this and I can't find enough consensus. there are several suggestions still running around: - Max's above - Minimum onboarding fees for Mobile - Removing the A factor - No rewards to unonboarded hotspots - Removing the 75k month for IOT and adding a 25% reserve that is split evenly between IOT and MOBILE - Debate on the preference of the formula of HIP-80 or the formula of HIP-51 I may not have all of them here How can we move to resolve this? We are getting very very close to the April 18th deadline and need to move to a vote. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 9:46 PM
I’d argue we don’t need to move to a vote. There is a perfectly valid mechanism in place. In fact that mechanism is the reason we moved to solana in the first place.
👍 1
Avatar
So what’s up Mobile getting a goose egg to start?
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
So what’s up Mobile getting a goose egg to start?
they get a 1 for A score if we stick to HIP-51 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
they get a 1 for A score if we stick to HIP-51 (edited)
And IoT?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/05/2023 10:21 PM
IOT gets the fourth root of 400,000 times 40
😂 1
Avatar
which is +-63 (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Tushar
The intention at the time was avoid a single zero sending the whole function to zero. However I don’t know that the intention at the time of writing 51 needs to be upheld. if the community wants HIP 80 everyone can evaluate it on its own merits (edited)
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/06/2023 1:30 AM
If HIP 51 is going to be exit, then a new HIP has to be written of course, but if Ferebee says yes we want to keep the spirit of HIP 51, then he cannot just change that Floor to 7. You cannot stretch an epoch from 30 min to 24 hours by saying we are going to use 48. If Ferebee does, he has to explain to the community that we are going to let go of HIP 51 and these are the implications: * comparison with HIP 51, * what the new percentages are going to be, * what every current subDAO is going to get in emissions and future subDAOs, * that 5G MOBILE is going to take over IOT as esims and Helium Mobile take off. I think a lot of people believing in IOT are going to be very angry. They were voting last year for HIP51-53 under the assumption that the DAO Utility Score was one thing, and now there are changes proposed that will essentially turn the projected 2.5% into 12.5% for 5G MOBILE. It would be wise to discuss why they think this change is needed as this change will not be favourable for IOT users at all.
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
If HIP 51 is going to be exit, then a new HIP has to be written of course, but if Ferebee says yes we want to keep the spirit of HIP 51, then he cannot just change that Floor to 7. You cannot stretch an epoch from 30 min to 24 hours by saying we are going to use 48. If Ferebee does, he has to explain to the community that we are going to let go of HIP 51 and these are the implications: * comparison with HIP 51, * what the new percentages are going to be, * what every current subDAO is going to get in emissions and future subDAOs, * that 5G MOBILE is going to take over IOT as esims and Helium Mobile take off. I think a lot of people believing in IOT are going to be very angry. They were voting last year for HIP51-53 under the assumption that the DAO Utility Score was one thing, and now there are changes proposed that will essentially turn the projected 2.5% into 12.5% for 5G MOBILE. It would be wise to discuss why they think this change is needed as this change will not be favourable for IOT users at all.
Iot is in trouble no matter what within this ecosystem. Imo
Avatar
Personally, I like the idea of adding the $5 minimum onboard for all subDaos while leaving the formula from 51 intact for now. I definitely think that formula should be revisited, but changing it last minute right before the deadline shouldn’t be the approach as it’s too important of a component to the new design to rush anything through.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Frightening isnt it
Active participation would be easier if the discussion was better structured, less going in circles, and more compact. (I know, that is hard to achieveand it is already better than many other discussions) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Personally, I like the idea of adding the $5 minimum onboard for all subDaos while leaving the formula from 51 intact for now. I definitely think that formula should be revisited, but changing it last minute right before the deadline shouldn’t be the approach as it’s too important of a component to the new design to rush anything through.
If you do that then with the code as it is then: you undervalue the $40M IOT paid in onboarding fees to be $5M and gift the MOBILE $50K worth of onboarding fees they didnt pay. Before IOT A = 65.1 MOBILE A = 1 Now IOT A = 38.7 MOBILE A = 11.8 Using last 30 days of active hotspots (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
If you do that then with the code as it is then: you undervalue the $40M IOT paid in onboarding fees to be $5M and gift the MOBILE $50K worth of onboarding fees they didnt pay. Before IOT A = 65.1 MOBILE A = 1 Now IOT A = 38.7 MOBILE A = 11.8 Using last 30 days of active hotspots (edited)
Yeah, I agree that breakdown isn’t necessarily ideal, and that’s why step 2 would be taking a more thorough look at revamping the equation that distributes HNT to the treasuries. I just don’t think it’s absolutely critical to have the new formula in place before April 18th.
Avatar
@mcharliem Leaving the DAO Utility score intact and unchanged before migration will cause it to be a much heavier lift post migration. Why? Prior to migration, there are many unknowns. 6 months Post migration, veHNT delegation will settle out, DC burn trends will be established and the community will learn that Mobile will quickly overtake IoT. Future changes would be successfully argued by some, “this just helps IoT at the expense of Mobile.” This HIP was designed to help protect IoT. If this doesn’t pass, IoT will have little to no protection, and a real tough road ahead. IoT motivated People all over the world will claim: IoT is Ded and Rug Pull. HIP51 designers knew this was going to happen from the beginning, etc, etc This HIP just gives IoT a chance to survive. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
@mcharliem Leaving the DAO Utility score intact and unchanged before migration will cause it to be a much heavier lift post migration. Why? Prior to migration, there are many unknowns. 6 months Post migration, veHNT delegation will settle out, DC burn trends will be established and the community will learn that Mobile will quickly overtake IoT. Future changes would be successfully argued by some, “this just helps IoT at the expense of Mobile.” This HIP was designed to help protect IoT. If this doesn’t pass, IoT will have little to no protection, and a real tough road ahead. IoT motivated People all over the world will claim: IoT is Ded and Rug Pull. HIP51 designers knew this was going to happen from the beginning, etc, etc This HIP just gives IoT a chance to survive. (edited)
That’s not really true though is it? Without this HIP the A factor does the protecting
Avatar
Avatar
groot
at least we have confirmation that, no matter how many times ferebee and gateholder repeated it, the $1440 floor that led to the factor 7 doesn’t exist. (edited)
Well, let me respond to one thing. To an extent, we have been arguing about my thought processes here. While I was doing the modeling, it seemed reasonable to me to compare what results HIP-51 would have given if applied at the time it was written. We have now heard from Tushar that I was looking at a value that was not actually considered when HIP-51 was designed. I have had this number, my so-called HIP-51 $1,440 Burn floor, in mind for weeks, and have been comparing it to results that turned up in the models I have been looking at. So it’s fair to say that I was wrong on that front. Accepted. In line with this, I’ve submitted PR #611 https://github.com/helium/HIP/pull/611/files which removes a clause from HIP-80 stating that the Floor of 7 is “in line with the original intent of HIP-51”. That represented my thinking when I wrote it, but I accept that evidently I was wrong. I’ll try to build a better model to address points @Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams has brought up. The point of view that “a lot of IOT people are going to be very angry” concerns me. An intention of HIP-80 is to provide protection to IOT, in recognition of the essential role it has played in founding the Helium DAO, that is at least as good as delivered by HIP-51. We can reasonably differ on what “good” protection looks like, but perhaps we can discuss it better with more modeling. And perhaps the model will show that we need to rethink parts of HIP-80 as it stands.
👍 4
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That’s not really true though is it? Without this HIP the A factor does the protecting
100% true. All it takes is a subDAO change and then the A factor is a mute point.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
100% true. All it takes is a subDAO change and then the A factor is a mute point.
If by subDAO change you mean that MOBILE will also burn the equivalent DC, then true.
Avatar
IoT is going to get swallowed up before they have a chance to mature.
💯 1
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
IoT is going to get swallowed up before they have a chance to mature.
I don't know what numbers you put into which model for this conclusion
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That’s not really true though is it? Without this HIP the A factor does the protecting
Regarding the A factor, I think it’s important to consider that subDAOs will naturally plan their onboarding fees differently depending on whether the fees (via A factor) contribute to their share of HNT emissions, or not. In my point of view, to the extent that low-cost Hotspots (sub-$100) have been proposed for both IOT and MOBILE, low onboarding fees would be a boon to the growth of both networks. In that regard, counting the A factor provides a perverse incentive that works against the growth of both IOT and MOBILE, and therefore total DC Burn. And it’s important to remember that DC Burn benefits everybody.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Regarding the A factor, I think it’s important to consider that subDAOs will naturally plan their onboarding fees differently depending on whether the fees (via A factor) contribute to their share of HNT emissions, or not. In my point of view, to the extent that low-cost Hotspots (sub-$100) have been proposed for both IOT and MOBILE, low onboarding fees would be a boon to the growth of both networks. In that regard, counting the A factor provides a perverse incentive that works against the growth of both IOT and MOBILE, and therefore total DC Burn. And it’s important to remember that DC Burn benefits everybody.
I don't think this negates my statement that the A factor gives IOT a factor for onboarding fees that it already burnt. So as an answer to your statement: lower onboarding fees are of course possible but that would even more reason to keep the A factor as it allows previously payed fees, that as you said benefits everybody, to count for something instead of telling those people "thanks for playing".
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
@mcharliem Leaving the DAO Utility score intact and unchanged before migration will cause it to be a much heavier lift post migration. Why? Prior to migration, there are many unknowns. 6 months Post migration, veHNT delegation will settle out, DC burn trends will be established and the community will learn that Mobile will quickly overtake IoT. Future changes would be successfully argued by some, “this just helps IoT at the expense of Mobile.” This HIP was designed to help protect IoT. If this doesn’t pass, IoT will have little to no protection, and a real tough road ahead. IoT motivated People all over the world will claim: IoT is Ded and Rug Pull. HIP51 designers knew this was going to happen from the beginning, etc, etc This HIP just gives IoT a chance to survive. (edited)
On the other hand, after migration, we'll have a better understanding of how a few things that are unknowns atm will play out, e.g. veHNT delegating behavior.
05:28
And also, whether post transition reward values are better. We are talking a lot about size of shares of token rewards to subDAOs, but miners very likely are primarily concerned about the value of their rewards . (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
On the other hand, after migration, we'll have a better understanding of how a few things that are unknowns atm will play out, e.g. veHNT delegating behavior.
Good luck changing the DAO Utility score at that time
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Good luck changing the DAO Utility score at that time
Sure, changing the DAO utility score may be harder then. But harder is not the same as impossible. Was just trying to add to a more nuanced picture.
Avatar
We have reason to change it today to lessen the impact of veHNT swings.
Avatar
And there may be enough people who care about Helium as a whole, to approve changes, if it turns out we need changes to prevent one subDAO with longterm potential from dying.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
We have reason to change it today to lessen the impact of veHNT swings.
I don’t think decreasing the impact of veHNT will lessen the impact of swings, quite the contrary. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
And there may be enough people who care about Helium as a whole, to approve changes, if it turns out we need changes to prevent one subDAO with longterm potential from dying.
I already see evidence that we also have those who are most interested in personal gain. I think I have read something to the effect of IoT had its chance. Not quoting directly, but that was the gist of it.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't think this negates my statement that the A factor gives IOT a factor for onboarding fees that it already burnt. So as an answer to your statement: lower onboarding fees are of course possible but that would even more reason to keep the A factor as it allows previously payed fees, that as you said benefits everybody, to count for something instead of telling those people "thanks for playing".
My comment was focused on potential incentives going forward and how they might influence network growth. I don’t see a particular benefit in “allowing previously paid fees … to count for something”, in and of itself. The “thanks for playing” for people who have paid onboarding fees in the past, is the HNT they have already mined.
👍 1
🤨 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don’t think decreasing the impact of veHNT will lessen the impact of swings, quite the contrary. (edited)
Why exactly? Mathematical reasoning would disagree. That was the whole point of the square root. Remember?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Why exactly? Mathematical reasoning would disagree. That was the whole point of the square root. Remember?
I may have misunderstood your post (after reading back) (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
My comment was focused on potential incentives going forward and how they might influence network growth. I don’t see a particular benefit in “allowing previously paid fees … to count for something”, in and of itself. The “thanks for playing” for people who have paid onboarding fees in the past, is the HNT they have already mined.
You’re discounting a $40M dc burn to 0 by removing A, so I do think that’s something to consider.
05:44
Important to note that given that you discount the $40M to 0 the floor isn’t a gift, far from it. (In HIP80 scenario) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You’re discounting a $40M dc burn to 0 by removing A, so I do think that’s something to consider.
In the past, IOT Hotspot owners paid a cost ($40) for onboarding, and received benefits, such as resistance of the network against Sybil attacks in the times before Validators, and an impressive “Network Utility” graph showing high rates of DC Burn during the phase of Hotspot Madness, which may have contributed to market sentiment. They also received the benefit of being able to mine HNT. The landscape has changed. My position is that if the sum of paid onboarding fees is a criterion for the distribution of HNT emissions, then yes, the fees matter, and MOBILE should not receive emissions except insofar as fees have actually been paid. That’s why HIP-78 proposed that MOBILE would count the existing MOBILE Hotspots if and only if “somebody”, as facilitated by Foundation, actually paid the missing fees. On the other hand, HIP-80 proposes different criteria for the distribution of HNT emissions, while attempting to respect the relative interests of both subDAOs in a way that aligns with previous expectations concerning general levels of HNT emission. The formula proposed does not consider onboarding fees past, present or future. In my view, they are irrelevant in that case. Just like if a city sets a new schedule for parking fees or building permits, I wouldn’t expect the schedule of future fees and allowed parking duration or house sizes to be influenced by fees paid in the past. That analogy is flawed for sure. Just attempting to explain my point of view. I certainly respect other points of view on the matter.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Important to note that given that you discount the $40M to 0 the floor isn’t a gift, far from it. (In HIP80 scenario) (edited)
No, the Floor isn’t a gift. It's intended, for IOT, to represent the past expectations of IOT participants, and ideally to protect IOT slightly better in the future than HIP-51 proposed to do.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
In the past, IOT Hotspot owners paid a cost ($40) for onboarding, and received benefits, such as resistance of the network against Sybil attacks in the times before Validators, and an impressive “Network Utility” graph showing high rates of DC Burn during the phase of Hotspot Madness, which may have contributed to market sentiment. They also received the benefit of being able to mine HNT. The landscape has changed. My position is that if the sum of paid onboarding fees is a criterion for the distribution of HNT emissions, then yes, the fees matter, and MOBILE should not receive emissions except insofar as fees have actually been paid. That’s why HIP-78 proposed that MOBILE would count the existing MOBILE Hotspots if and only if “somebody”, as facilitated by Foundation, actually paid the missing fees. On the other hand, HIP-80 proposes different criteria for the distribution of HNT emissions, while attempting to respect the relative interests of both subDAOs in a way that aligns with previous expectations concerning general levels of HNT emission. The formula proposed does not consider onboarding fees past, present or future. In my view, they are irrelevant in that case. Just like if a city sets a new schedule for parking fees or building permits, I wouldn’t expect the schedule of future fees and allowed parking duration or house sizes to be influenced by fees paid in the past. That analogy is flawed for sure. Just attempting to explain my point of view. I certainly respect other points of view on the matter.
yes I agree with this max even had a bet "paid data would be flowing by end of 2022"... here we are in April hip 51 could never have predicted this, and the solana migration, many factors have changed you must adjust accordingly.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You’re discounting a $40M dc burn to 0 by removing A, so I do think that’s something to consider.
40m -> 40 floor
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
40m -> 40 floor
Ah I see, so MOBILE 0 -> 0 floor?
06:07
That was way too easy 😏
Avatar
I was going to quip, oh, gateholder has 40:40 vision here. But I don’t think these numbers really mean the same thing. 😂
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I was going to quip, oh, gateholder has 40:40 vision here. But I don’t think these numbers really mean the same thing. 😂
they don't but just trying to help the special among us 😉
Avatar
We’re all special.
Avatar
but he is now openly saying he wants to destroy mobile
🤨 1
Avatar
you have a vivid imagination
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
but he is now openly saying he wants to destroy mobile
I don’t see that. @groot, do you want to destroy MOBILE? Seems to me that would be short-sighted.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t see that. @groot, do you want to destroy MOBILE? Seems to me that would be short-sighted.
I spent an awful lot of time trying to make Helium better to want to burn it to the ground don't you think? Of course not 🤦
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Regarding the A factor, I think it’s important to consider that subDAOs will naturally plan their onboarding fees differently depending on whether the fees (via A factor) contribute to their share of HNT emissions, or not. In my point of view, to the extent that low-cost Hotspots (sub-$100) have been proposed for both IOT and MOBILE, low onboarding fees would be a boon to the growth of both networks. In that regard, counting the A factor provides a perverse incentive that works against the growth of both IOT and MOBILE, and therefore total DC Burn. And it’s important to remember that DC Burn benefits everybody.
My current thoughts Use your new Utility Score. Say that the floor values are chain variables to be reviewed by a WG and new values will be veHNT voted on at ever increasing intervals or on acceptance of a new subDAO Use the floor values of 40 and 7 for next 3+ months which gives us 2 months to evaluate current score and how its going then at least a month to discuss and vote on new chan vars. To be implemented at the halving. Next review in 6 months, then yearly after that. Gives us enough time to make a change (edited)
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
My current thoughts Use your new Utility Score. Say that the floor values are chain variables to be reviewed by a WG and new values will be veHNT voted on at ever increasing intervals or on acceptance of a new subDAO Use the floor values of 40 and 7 for next 3+ months which gives us 2 months to evaluate current score and how its going then at least a month to discuss and vote on new chan vars. To be implemented at the halving. Next review in 6 months, then yearly after that. Gives us enough time to make a change (edited)
you mean 40 and 7?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
you mean 40 and 7?
Yes changed. Lets agree on an equation and review the static variables later
💜 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Yes changed. Lets agree on an equation and review the static variables later
I can agree to this
💯 1
Avatar
The floor level of 7 is worth 215HNT 150HNT per MOBILE gateway in those 3 months. (edit: needed to correct for HST) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I can agree to this
The flaw I can think of is that veHNT holders in one subdao can vote that the floor in their subdao goes higher.
Avatar
once POC goes into effect the number of gateways in use will likly double in those 3 months
Avatar
You can't complain on the one hand MOBILE moves so slow you need the floor and on the other hand expect it to move quickly
06:21
50HNT a month subsidy per mobile gateway is what the floor is
Avatar
Avatar
groot
50HNT a month subsidy per mobile gateway is what the floor is
that will spur growth !!!!
Avatar
50HNT a month for having an internet connection, wonder how that will go with IOT holders. After I ran the numbers I understood why mr 9000 gateways kept pushing for it though. (edited)
Avatar
and right now the freedomfi units in America have been adding a significant portion of the new hotspots. right now MOBILE needs to grow to become a significant % of populated areas otherwise we might end up paying to much to Tmobile also using the gateway metric is wrong there are about 11k radios the cheapest being 1000$
Avatar
Just for the record, there is no 'we' in paying T-mobile. Helium Mobile is a customer of Helium. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Just for the record, there is no 'we' in paying T-mobile. Helium Mobile is a customer of Helium. (edited)
we the MOBILE ecosystem
Avatar
But 'we the MOBILE ecosystem' doesn't pay T-mobile
06:30
Helium Mobile is your customer
06:30
Not really relevant to the topic at hand though, just a common misconception
Avatar
how much Helium Mobile pays T-mobile will likely be the single largest expense for the foreseeable future (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
My current thoughts Use your new Utility Score. Say that the floor values are chain variables to be reviewed by a WG and new values will be veHNT voted on at ever increasing intervals or on acceptance of a new subDAO Use the floor values of 40 and 7 for next 3+ months which gives us 2 months to evaluate current score and how its going then at least a month to discuss and vote on new chan vars. To be implemented at the halving. Next review in 6 months, then yearly after that. Gives us enough time to make a change (edited)
Placing this language into the actual HIP80 is a wonderful idea.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
50HNT a month for having an internet connection, wonder how that will go with IOT holders. After I ran the numbers I understood why mr 9000 gateways kept pushing for it though. (edited)
Who is Mr 9,000 gateways?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
how much Helium Mobile pays T-mobile will likely be the single largest expense for the foreseeable future (edited)
I’m not an expert in VMNO financials, but a quick google search suggests that profit margins are in the range of 20% using traditional fiat based analytics. How much of that floats through to the Mobile subDAO or subNetwork? Who knows. My conjecture is at most 30 GB/month/customer. Or $15/month or $180/yr per customer max through the Mobile subDAO. Will Nova share those statistics? It would be wonderful if they did, but they are not obligated to do so.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Placing this language into the actual HIP80 is a wonderful idea.
The idea of making 40 and 7 explicit chain vars was proposed here previously, and I suggested it would be an option. Interestingly I was lambasted both for considering the option that the values might be variable, and for considering the option that they might be fixed. I don’t care either way, Y’all fight that one amongst yourselves. I don’t know what to add.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The idea of making 40 and 7 explicit chain vars was proposed here previously, and I suggested it would be an option. Interestingly I was lambasted both for considering the option that the values might be variable, and for considering the option that they might be fixed. I don’t care either way, Y’all fight that one amongst yourselves. I don’t know what to add.
Did I lambaste you for this?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Did I lambaste you for this?
no but we have been "lambasted by others" for sure...
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Did I lambaste you for this?
Not at all. It’s somewhere in the upscroll.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Not at all. It’s somewhere in the upscroll.
That’s what I thought, because I supported it once I understood it 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Not at all. It’s somewhere in the upscroll.
im to traumatized to go find it lol
😂 5
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
We have reason to change it today to lessen the impact of veHNT swings.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:39 AM
I don’t buy this argument. There are many reasons to stake, a square root change shouldn’t impact dao utility score much except in the most extreme cases.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t buy this argument. There are many reasons to stake, a square root change shouldn’t impact dao utility score much except in the most extreme cases.
Might want to argue that with JMF, it’s his proposal.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
and right now the freedomfi units in America have been adding a significant portion of the new hotspots. right now MOBILE needs to grow to become a significant % of populated areas otherwise we might end up paying to much to Tmobile also using the gateway metric is wrong there are about 11k radios the cheapest being 1000$
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:43 AM
Who is we? We have no affiliation with the MVNO, that’s a private company that is our customer.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
In the past, IOT Hotspot owners paid a cost ($40) for onboarding, and received benefits, such as resistance of the network against Sybil attacks in the times before Validators, and an impressive “Network Utility” graph showing high rates of DC Burn during the phase of Hotspot Madness, which may have contributed to market sentiment. They also received the benefit of being able to mine HNT. The landscape has changed. My position is that if the sum of paid onboarding fees is a criterion for the distribution of HNT emissions, then yes, the fees matter, and MOBILE should not receive emissions except insofar as fees have actually been paid. That’s why HIP-78 proposed that MOBILE would count the existing MOBILE Hotspots if and only if “somebody”, as facilitated by Foundation, actually paid the missing fees. On the other hand, HIP-80 proposes different criteria for the distribution of HNT emissions, while attempting to respect the relative interests of both subDAOs in a way that aligns with previous expectations concerning general levels of HNT emission. The formula proposed does not consider onboarding fees past, present or future. In my view, they are irrelevant in that case. Just like if a city sets a new schedule for parking fees or building permits, I wouldn’t expect the schedule of future fees and allowed parking duration or house sizes to be influenced by fees paid in the past. That analogy is flawed for sure. Just attempting to explain my point of view. I certainly respect other points of view on the matter.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:50 AM
We want burn though. Through transactions, data, and onboards. Why would we want to remove onboard revenue?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We want burn though. Through transactions, data, and onboards. Why would we want to remove onboard revenue?
well every dollar spent on onboarding is 1 less dollar spent on equipment...
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Might want to argue that with JMF, it’s his proposal.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:51 AM
I’m arguing the timing aspect. The same people allegedly hoping to game veHNT in 2 weeks have HNT today.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We want burn though. Through transactions, data, and onboards. Why would we want to remove onboard revenue?
Do you believe onboarding revenue will be significant and beneficial going forward, relative to its disincentive to network buildout?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t buy this argument. There are many reasons to stake, a square root change shouldn’t impact dao utility score much except in the most extreme cases.
Math much? JMF proposed this change. He’s the one who came up with the DAO Utility score that you are holding onto so tightly. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
well every dollar spent on onboarding is 1 less dollar spent on equipment...
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:53 AM
And that’s for the subDAO to decide how they want to balance that. Every dollar spent on onboarding is also an additional dollar that needs to be earned before key churning gaming becomes profitable
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Do you believe onboarding revenue will be significant and beneficial going forward, relative to its disincentive to network buildout?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:53 AM
Yes, it’s by far the biggest revenue generator in the history of Helium. It also provides security as I’ve stated above
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’m arguing the timing aspect. The same people allegedly hoping to game veHNT in 2 weeks have HNT today.
JMF’s argument was less that specific gaming plans were currently being prepared, but more that degenerate cases could arise that would make it very difficult for more than one network to prosper. But I don’t want to make his arguments for him in detail.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:54 AM
Imagine a no onboarding fee LoRa network. Panther X and Deeper would have been gaming at even higher levels
Avatar
To be fair it’s hard to understand JMF’s argument if he isn’t around to present it
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes, it’s by far the biggest revenue generator in the history of Helium. It also provides security as I’ve stated above
How much revenue has Helium had from Data Transfer in its history? Do we intend to build future of the Helium DAO on that scale of Data Transfer revenue?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:54 AM
And hasn’t posted a model with his dooms day scenario
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
How much revenue has Helium had from Data Transfer in its history? Do we intend to build future of the Helium DAO on that scale of Data Transfer revenue?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:56 AM
We built the largest contiguous wireless network in the history of the world with an onboarding fee. Don’t really see the argument that a $400 hotspot would have grown the network to a size the $450 hotspots did.
08:56
And again, imagine if Panther X and Deeper didn’t have to pay to onboard devices.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We built the largest contiguous wireless network in the history of the world with an onboarding fee. Don’t really see the argument that a $400 hotspot would have grown the network to a size the $450 hotspots did.
I also remember Hotspots selling on eBay for $10,000. Have market conditions changed since then? Maybe so, can’t quite put my finger on it.
😄 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 8:59 AM
We gonna just ignore the anti gaming aspect of it? Gotta pay for security
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I also remember Hotspots selling on eBay for $10,000. Have market conditions changed since then? Maybe so, can’t quite put my finger on it.
On the other hand in the early early days hotspots were 300 and also included that onboarding fee so it’s too easy to throw it all on market conditions
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We gonna just ignore the anti gaming aspect of it? Gotta pay for security
How does a $40 onboarding fee when Hotspots were retailing for $500 and selling for $1,000+ relate to a $5 onboarding fee (proposed minimum per HIP-80) if Hotspots sell for $100?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
How does a $40 onboarding fee when Hotspots were retailing for $500 and selling for $1,000+ relate to a $5 onboarding fee (proposed minimum per HIP-80) if Hotspots sell for $100?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:01 AM
That’s a Helium DAO minimum. SubDAOs can determine how much securing their network is worth
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That’s a Helium DAO minimum. SubDAOs can determine how much securing their network is worth
Good for them!
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:02 AM
Again, we keep ignoring real world case studies that actually happened
Avatar
With the HIP51 formula they get something for securing their network though, while with HIP80 they are incentivized not to care about securing their network
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:02 AM
Most of that onboard fee goes back to the subDAO in aggregate anyway.
09:03
It’s like a deposit
09:04
Gateholder is afraid of being on the hook for possibly paying his own onboarding fees. We shouldn’t remove a revenue generator for the network and a security feature because some guy doesn’t want to spend $2,000 in a scenario that doesn’t even exist.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Gateholder is afraid of being on the hook for possibly paying his own onboarding fees. We shouldn’t remove a revenue generator for the network and a security feature because some guy doesn’t want to spend $2,000 in a scenario that doesn’t even exist.
I said on many occasions I was willing to pay onboarding, in fact if hip 80 doesn't pass we need to make that happened before merge one of the 2 must happen...
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
How does a $40 onboarding fee when Hotspots were retailing for $500 and selling for $1,000+ relate to a $5 onboarding fee (proposed minimum per HIP-80) if Hotspots sell for $100?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:09 AM
Isn’t an outdoor Helium Radio like $2,500?
Avatar
mine is closer to 4k but my point is to make sure the score for either system doesn't reach a critical tipping point that is all, whatever method to accomplish that is my goal. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Isn’t an outdoor Helium Radio like $2,500?
Yes it is? The fee discussion is relevant to the $99 LoRa Hotspots (plus software license) already listed from SensecAP, and the $99 short-range Wi-Fi Hotspots capcom has mentioned for MOBILE.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Yes it is? The fee discussion is relevant to the $99 LoRa Hotspots (plus software license) already listed from SensecAP, and the $99 short-range Wi-Fi Hotspots capcom has mentioned for MOBILE.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:13 AM
And the IOT subDAO can pass a IIP to reduce the onboarding fee for those devices if they want.
Avatar
and to some degree a lot of my concerns would be satiated if Foundation would confirm the time line for the e-sim relaunch but since there have benn little update or mention it worries me that there might be a prolonged time with 0 data...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:14 AM
Foundation probably not busy with anything else right now. Surprised they didn’t get back to whales like you with 100 hotspots.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
And the IOT subDAO can pass a IIP to reduce the onboarding fee for those devices if they want.
I was just discussing the fees from the POV of whether it is helpful to network growth to incentivize higher fees. In my view, no. If you value the disincentive to gamers higher, that’s a valid position.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:17 AM
I think we just want to reward networks that secure their network more. Gamers historically sell as fast as they get tokens which is a bigger net negative for the growth of the ecosystem than the added cost of an onboarding fee
09:18
Also to the point of changes in economic situation, is it possible HNT has performed how it has relative to the other tokens because the biggest users of tokens, makers onboarding, stopped buying?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also to the point of changes in economic situation, is it possible HNT has performed how it has relative to the other tokens because the biggest users of tokens, makers onboarding, stopped buying?
I’d be surprised if that math checks out. Does it?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:35 AM
Who else was buying HNT to use it? The onboards and asserts were the only material non-speculative reason to have HNT
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
and to some degree a lot of my concerns would be satiated if Foundation would confirm the time line for the e-sim relaunch but since there have benn little update or mention it worries me that there might be a prolonged time with 0 data...
birdwitharms 04/06/2023 9:42 AM
So you’ve managed to deploy a massive fleet with no data flowing for what, 9 months, and now a few weeks is scary? I’m not following
Avatar
Avatar
birdwitharms
So you’ve managed to deploy a massive fleet with no data flowing for what, 9 months, and now a few weeks is scary? I’m not following
I am not worried about myself, my main concern is what we really cant afford is to have a route, meaning lots of people have put faith in the treasury to pay out and either reinvest or take the money and run, but if people get fearful (just like on the Binance delisting) it could create a large negative impression of MOBILE this will just be bad for everyone, obviously mostly for mobile but this I think would stunt growth and make it hard also because it has taken this long making a run on MOBILE more likely esp since the last Solana push back even though they arguably have little effect in reality.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:50 AM
I can’t find the old message but were you saying that no one saw these delays coming then cited a time I was so sure that delays would happen that I bet the CEO of Nova Labs $1,000 despite whatever inside information he might have and was right?
Avatar
at the end of the day what I was suggesting is it would be a smart business move for IOT to grant MOBILE a higher rate in the beginning and take a larger cut later. I can only lead a horse to water though
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We want burn though. Through transactions, data, and onboards. Why would we want to remove onboard revenue?
Please speak for yourself. I don't support achieving burn directly via onboards. Onboarding burns will always be one time burns. The real value is building the networks and getting recurring burns via usage of the networks. Lower onboarding fees will make it easier/faster to build the networks. If we need minimum onboarding fees for other reasons, so be it. But I am not in favor of using the onboarding fees to get some additional DC burn in the short term. If I misunderstood anything/are not up to date with your position, apologies.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Please speak for yourself. I don't support achieving burn directly via onboards. Onboarding burns will always be one time burns. The real value is building the networks and getting recurring burns via usage of the networks. Lower onboarding fees will make it easier/faster to build the networks. If we need minimum onboarding fees for other reasons, so be it. But I am not in favor of using the onboarding fees to get some additional DC burn in the short term. If I misunderstood anything/are not up to date with your position, apologies.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:52 AM
You forget that the onboard burn created the buy pressure for HNT which increased the price and incentivized more people to buy hotspots.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You forget that the onboard burn created the buy pressure for HNT which increased the price and incentivized more people to buy hotspots.
ya but that also caused the bubble...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:53 AM
1 million more hotspots before the bubble compared to after the bubble. The pre bubble network is a rounding error in the current size
09:53
Don’t argue that it inhibits network growth when it helps network growth
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Don’t argue that it inhibits network growth when it helps network growth
I am for "sane" network growth 32k spots in one city is inherently useless
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:56 AM
The onboarding cost somehow caused over saturation? Please expand on that point
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I am for "sane" network growth 32k spots in one city is inherently useless
That’s more of a PoC issue. It was too generous. Then everyone got their hotspots in waves/batches at the same time. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:57 AM
Like we can sit around in a circle and talk about how great it would be if there was a ton of data flowing and how that should be our goal but if these networks are going to be inefficient there likely won’t be $50 worth of data that ever flows through most of those hotspots.
09:57
It’s an incentive to be more efficient with your POC
Avatar
uncoordinated and massive growth will always be inefficient
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You forget that the onboard burn created the buy pressure for HNT which increased the price and incentivized more people to buy hotspots.
Possible. Haven't thought about it, you may very well be right on that. (On the other hand, some say IOT grew too fast) Let's say it is/was so: Is it still needed for future growth? The situation may be different. (Remember, I am not arguing against a minimal onboarding fee that may be needed for other reasons.) (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:59 AM
For IOT or just in general?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
For IOT or just in general?
We should answer the question in general. If there are nuanced views for different subDAOs, I am glad to hear them, too. (If that was even directed at my post) (edited)
Avatar
I think massive explosive growth is hard to beat since your growth will outrun incentives and therefore cause overshoot you otherwise would’ve missed.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Possible. Haven't thought about it, you may very well be right on that. (On the other hand, some say IOT grew too fast) Let's say it is/was so: Is it still needed for future growth? The situation may be different. (Remember, I am not arguing against a minimal onboarding fee that may be needed for other reasons.) (edited)
I think it objectively did, it become overly saturated with hotspots in some areas and also it wasn't ready to tackle the gaming issues
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:02 AM
In general yes, for a few reasons. The more early usage and burn of HNT the more attractive being a helium subDAO becomes. No one wants worthless tokens in their treasury account in exchange for submitting to Helium’s rules. It also guards against subDAOs incubating in Helium’s ecosystem and then leaving before there is DC usage so they can use their own token as the currency. With onboard burn, Helium sees some of the revenue in exchange for incubating. (edited)
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think it objectively did, it become overly saturated with hotspots in some areas and also it wasn't ready to tackle the gaming issues
Gaming wasn’t caused by growth
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think it objectively did, it become overly saturated with hotspots in some areas and also it wasn't ready to tackle the gaming issues
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:03 AM
Panther X stopped gaming because it took longer to make $50 than it did for the deny list to stop them.
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Possible. Haven't thought about it, you may very well be right on that. (On the other hand, some say IOT grew too fast) Let's say it is/was so: Is it still needed for future growth? The situation may be different. (Remember, I am not arguing against a minimal onboarding fee that may be needed for other reasons.) (edited)
early deployers didn't have the tools to make good decisions I think Mobile will do a much better job of that I think
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:04 AM
Speaking in generalities about things that happened before you were here doesn’t help the conversation
10:04
Oh that’s funny I wrote that before he did it again
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The onboarding cost somehow caused over saturation? Please expand on that point
Well, if your line of reasoning holds that the onboarding cost caused HNT value spike, and growth of network, and we truly had too many hotspots too fast, then it could follow that the onboarding costs caused this (in combination with not punishing oversaturation in hexes more) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
early deployers didn't have the tools to make good decisions I think Mobile will do a much better job of that I think
That’s a wild assumption to be honest
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Well, if your line of reasoning holds that the onboarding cost caused HNT value spike, and growth of network, and we truly had too many hotspots too fast, then it could follow that the onboarding costs caused this (in combination with not punishing oversaturation in hexes more) (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:05 AM
But that’s fine too. The devices exist in places that had no coverage too. Inefficiencies will happen
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But that’s fine too. The devices exist in places that had no coverage too. Inefficiencies will happen
I can live with that, too. Just trying to answer your question.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:06 AM
There always the option of people buying the over saturated hotspots for pennies on the dollar and deploying elsewhere (edited)
Avatar
General question: So what's the current strategy to continue this conversation in a way that we come closer to decisions regarding what to vote about and when to vote?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:07 AM
I just don’t view over saturation in some areas as an inherently bad problem to have so trying to see the other point of view on that
👆 1
Avatar
Anyway, I’ve updated the pink model with some more data points, some of which address points @Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams mentioned earlier. Some changes from the previous version: – In the HIP-51 scenario, we assume MOBILE Hotspots will pay their onboarding fee of $40. It’s been proposed here that they wouldn’t be allowed to earn otherwise. Under HIP-51, it seems that onboarding might stay at $40, at least that’s what proponents of HIP-51 here seem to be suggesting. At any rate, that’s the assumption. – As before, I assume equal delegation of veHNT to both subDAOs. Modeling veHNT is another discussion, and I have seen no convincing argument that we know how to predict how it will develop. The veHNT V factor is an independent consideration from the rest of the Score, the D and (for HIP-51) A components. – “capcom slashes” shows a hypothetical scenario in which rewards for overcrowded Hotspots (in big cities, particularly) are slashed to the bone. Perhaps only the best would be rewarded. I only saw capcom introduce the original idea flamboyantly, but I believe it has been under development since. This might cause a bunch of LoRa Hotspots to turn off. – “Wi-Fi everywhere” refers to a post by capcom recently discussing the upcoming cheap short-range Wi-Fi Hotspots for MOBILE. He proposed a goal would be 100x the number of Wi-Fi MOBILE Hotspots over LoRa Hotspots. I multiplied the hpyothetical slashed number of LoRa Hotspots above by 100x for this. – “IOT goes to town” is just what it says on the tin. Perhaps this can refocus the discussion on actual numbers. The HIP-80 part of the table continues to use the magic numbers 40 and 7. As we can see, initially IOT would have its share reduced from 96.7% to 85.1%, to help MOBILE launch. In all following scenarios, the share of IOT is increased vs. HIP-51. But in those cases where there is a large difference, the loss of the stronger network is minor to noticeable, whereas the gain of the weaker protocol is noticeable to major. Solidarity, if you will. [Edit: Note that HIP-81 uses the same basic formula as HIP-51, so the results should be similar. However, HIP-81 suggests that MOBILE might choose to set much higher onboarding fees, possibly up to 10% of total hardware cost, instead of $40. This wouldn’t change the results for HIP-80, but it would have the same effect as assuming a larger number of onboarded Hotspots in the HIP-51 table shown here.] [Edit: groot points out that the number of 1M Hotspots for MOBILE shown in line 4 of the table is quite a high assumption. I’ve updated the table to use a figure of 200,000 there, see https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1095301927832649759. That also corrects an error in the bottom two lines of the HIP-80 section, which meant to show 8M MOBILE Hotspots as in the HIP-51 section. This was a typo here, which does not affect the shares in the right columns, as HIP-80 does not consider the number of Hotspots.] (edited)
10:07
10:08
Here’s the post by capcom on the Wi-Fi Hotspots for MOBILE:
10:08
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:09 AM
Right so $5 keeps it relatively low to not inhibit growth and keeping the A factor incentivizes subDAOs to keep it at higher price, around 10% of the hardware cost
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I just don’t view over saturation in some areas as an inherently bad problem to have so trying to see the other point of view on that
Depends on the degree of oversaturation. Oversaturation in general means, there is hardware deployed where it doesn't add utility, and it gets some part of the rewards, thus lowering average rewards, thus leading to less value left to incentivize deploying hotspots where we don't have coverage atm.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Depends on the degree of oversaturation. Oversaturation in general means, there is hardware deployed where it doesn't add utility, and it gets some part of the rewards, thus lowering average rewards, thus leading to less value left to incentivize deploying hotspots where we don't have coverage atm.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:10 AM
That’s for the subDAO to sort out via POC rewards though. This is a Helium DAO HIP creating rules for the subDAOs to abide by
👍 1
ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 04/06/2023 10:12 AM
Avatar
Anyway, I’m off to dinner for a while. Will check back later.
🥗 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
General question: So what's the current strategy to continue this conversation in a way that we come closer to decisions regarding what to vote about and when to vote?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:14 AM
I think there’s too much in this HIP to pass pre migration. Best course of action is to break it up into smaller HIPs and pass the critical ones on this side of the migration (if any actually are critical)
alwaysthinking 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think there’s too much in this HIP to pass pre migration. Best course of action is to break it up into smaller HIPs and pass the critical ones on this side of the migration (if any actually are critical)
Could agree with a strategy, to concentrate on the most important things and things without disagreement first. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:15 AM
The minimum onboard fee at least puts more pressure on Mobile to do something (though I’m not sure they can actually onboard even if they wanted to)
10:17
I’m against Arman’s proposal to grandfather in those radios. Calchip retroactively burned DC so mobile shouldn’t get special treatment
👆 1
👍 1
Avatar
So IOT will take a 12% haircut pre-halving, but don't worry somewhere in the future you get some of it back. It's becoming more every iteration btw (edited)
Avatar
The important part of HIP-80 is the Utility Score formula. Feel free to propose what else should be left out to make it simpler. (Yes, the magic numbers are part of the Utility Score formula. The alternative would be a different Utility Score formula.) Anyway, bye for now.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:18 AM
Simpler shouldn’t be the goal
10:19
Better should be the goal
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So IOT will take a 12% haircut pre-halving, but don't worry somewhere in the future you get some of it back. It's becoming more every iteration btw (edited)
Yes, that’s a fair way of putting it, though “some” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Simpler shouldn’t be the goal
Simpler is often better, and I think you undervalue simple. But anyway.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Yes, that’s a fair way of putting it, though “some” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence.
Would you rather have I put 0?
10:21
Solutions should be as simple as possible, but not any simpler. Are you sure the simplification isn't 'too simple'?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:21 AM
I don’t think the simpler formula is simpler in practice. Way too much manual rebalancing to be the simpler option
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think there’s too much in this HIP to pass pre migration. Best course of action is to break it up into smaller HIPs and pass the critical ones on this side of the migration (if any actually are critical)
Strong disagree.
Avatar
@ferebee, did you consider adding this into HIP80? At my most recent glance, I didn’t see it. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093524073369317409
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
My current thoughts Use your new Utility Score. Say that the floor values are chain variables to be reviewed by a WG and new values will be veHNT voted on at ever increasing intervals or on acceptance of a new subDAO Use the floor values of 40 and 7 for next 3+ months which gives us 2 months to evaluate current score and how its going then at least a month to discuss and vote on new chan vars. To be implemented at the halving. Next review in 6 months, then yearly after that. Gives us enough time to make a change (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 1:28 PM
Are we convinced working groups are actually good?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Are we convinced working groups are actually good?
I have no opinion worth putting into words at the moment. I would have to go with what others think.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 1:31 PM
I think at a minimum it’s too soon to tell but it’ll likely turn into a subDAO politics show
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Are we convinced working groups are actually good?
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 1:32 PM
I thought you didn't like all the DM Stuff?
13:32
Better to have a fishbowl so everyone can see
💯 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 1:34 PM
I’m more saying idk if we want to rely on working groups to make decisions when data can make decisions
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 1:39 PM
This isn't a wg room either
13:40
Anyones free to write in here , still only a few people
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 1:42 PM
Just because participation is low doesn’t mean we want to further gate participation though
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 1:43 PM
Hasn't stopped anyone with the iot group (sorry ferebee very off topic) from pinging me or others in PoC or general or via DM
Avatar
Another_AKA 04/06/2023 1:47 PM
I am somewhat inclined to agree with a % for an onboarding fee. Floats based on the value of the device being onboarded. I can see people balking at a $500 (e.g. 10%) on board fee for a 436 and that may hurt or slow deployments. Even though I have some 5G deployments I would not be opposed to an retroactive onboard fee. Radios must be onboarded to continue earning. Would be best to roll this out post migration when there are subdao exchange options for folks to use to pay the onboard.
Avatar
Avatar
Another_AKA
I am somewhat inclined to agree with a % for an onboarding fee. Floats based on the value of the device being onboarded. I can see people balking at a $500 (e.g. 10%) on board fee for a 436 and that may hurt or slow deployments. Even though I have some 5G deployments I would not be opposed to an retroactive onboard fee. Radios must be onboarded to continue earning. Would be best to roll this out post migration when there are subdao exchange options for folks to use to pay the onboard.
This is way more complicated to program than now, it could be done yes. But magnitudes more compicated than HIP51 or HIP80
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
This is way more complicated to program than now, it could be done yes. But magnitudes more compicated than HIP51 or HIP80
Another_AKA 04/06/2023 1:55 PM
Understood. Then simpler is better here.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
This is way more complicated to program than now, it could be done yes. But magnitudes more compicated than HIP51 or HIP80
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 2:00 PM
Not if you strip away the “active” portion of it. As of now the subDAO reports to helium DAO how many devices they have active multiplied by the current onboard fee
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Not if you strip away the “active” portion of it. As of now the subDAO reports to helium DAO how many devices they have active multiplied by the current onboard fee
AAKAs talking of Radios must be onboarded to continue earning. Which to me means an NFT, and a record on that NFT of the fee paid. Even if we dont count it towards the A number
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
AAKAs talking of Radios must be onboarded to continue earning. Which to me means an NFT, and a record on that NFT of the fee paid. Even if we dont count it towards the A number
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 2:16 PM
You could just burn the DC to mint the NFT so no record would be needed since all NFTs would need to have the fee burned to exist
14:18
Then it becomes easy to audit rewards if the subDAO rewards wallet rewards wallets without NFTs you know they are rewarding unonboarded devices which will become illegal under HIP-81 (or whatever number it would be)
Avatar
I'm not sure I'm doing this right, I'll figure it out eventually.. (lower is hip80 upper is hip51) (edited)
eyeshake 1
Avatar
Sorry to cause a minor amount of trouble. Why has it been decided to only a square root on the V part of the equation rather than 3rd or 4th root? If the goal is to attenuate the effect of large numbers...
Avatar
I think ferebee figured that you want to limit the V part, but not so much that it becomes useless to delegate. I think with both the sqrt() in V and D you're effectively saying 1 veHNT is worth 1 USD of DC burn, with a 4th root it would become essentially useless to delegate and you could probably better just burn it.
14:35
But I'm sure ferebee has better worded explanation
👆 1
Avatar
I am looking at the effects on distribution of various transformations and it looks to me that a log(x) transformation does what we seem to be looking better than a SQRT(x) transformation.
14:38
Here is log(x)
14:38
14:39
here is square root (edited)
14:39
Avatar
with just the first bit to show the floors.
Avatar
log(x) reduce skewness better without modifying the distribution excessively. The goal is usually to get to a skewness towards 0. (edited)
14:42
this is what makes the square root transformation appealing for sure
14:42
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
log(x) reduce skewness better without modifying the distribution excessively. The goal is usually to get to a skewness towards 0. (edited)
Another goal is simplicity. Some might consider this more complicated
Avatar
Params for these plots are: HIP80_FLOOR_A = 40 HIP80_FLOOR_B = 7 DEVICES_A = 400000 DEVICE_COST_A = 40 DEVICES_B = 3500 DEVICE_COST_B = 10 It shows the % of rewards IOT gets for HIP51/80 on Z, X and Y are IOT and MOBILE burn respectively. V is constant as well as A (for HIP51). (edited)
🙏 1
Avatar
The V score, as is, is likely to be positively skewed as those with large bags will easily be able to commit staking for four years to get the 100x bonus.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Params for these plots are: HIP80_FLOOR_A = 40 HIP80_FLOOR_B = 7 DEVICES_A = 400000 DEVICE_COST_A = 40 DEVICES_B = 3500 DEVICE_COST_B = 10 It shows the % of rewards IOT gets for HIP51/80 on Z, X and Y are IOT and MOBILE burn respectively. V is constant as well as A (for HIP51). (edited)
So if you fix the floor at 40, you put that vertical part all the way to the left at 40k?
Avatar
If only there were more dimensions to plot in coolcry
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Params for these plots are: HIP80_FLOOR_A = 40 HIP80_FLOOR_B = 7 DEVICES_A = 400000 DEVICE_COST_A = 40 DEVICES_B = 3500 DEVICE_COST_B = 10 It shows the % of rewards IOT gets for HIP51/80 on Z, X and Y are IOT and MOBILE burn respectively. V is constant as well as A (for HIP51). (edited)
It’s pretty, but what’s the point? Not being sarcastic here. Truly trying to understand what you are trying to say.
Avatar
Looks to me the floor just ensures mobile doesn't earn much for a long time. That sounds like a great strategy.</sarcasm>
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
It’s pretty, but what’s the point? Not being sarcastic here. Truly trying to understand what you are trying to say.
The point was for me to get a better understanding of how these two HIPs behave. Ferebee has posted some numbers where they sort of align but that doesn't really tell me much while this does. And since I made it anyway I shared it with the group.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The point was for me to get a better understanding of how these two HIPs behave. Ferebee has posted some numbers where they sort of align but that doesn't really tell me much while this does. And since I made it anyway I shared it with the group.
I have to ask and please understand that I am not challenging you. Just trying to understand. What does this tell you that Ferebee’s numbers don’t tell you?
Avatar
If we zoom in it shows what the floors do
Avatar
Wut?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I have to ask and please understand that I am not challenging you. Just trying to understand. What does this tell you that Ferebee’s numbers don’t tell you?
Shows where each one overtakes the other, how it progresses and how it ends.
14:52
I'm not saying ferebee didn't provide all the information, I'm saying this is easier to pan around in then change numbers endlessly trying to get a picture where it goes (for me) (edited)
14:54
to better get my point across I maybe should've led with that it's interactive coolcry
Avatar
It’s pretty. I’ll grant you that. And if it helps you understand better, that’s awesome:) The banker in me likes things simpler. Yes I was a VP of a bank in a former life.
Avatar
Am I reading the graph incorrectly? Looks to me IoT doesn't need a floor unless it moves less than $2000 burn and mobile earns more than $40,000. IoT already earns $1440 or something like; right?
Avatar
both surfaces are IOT, one for HIP51 and one for HIP80 so I don't think that's a conclusion that you can really make based on this graph (edited)
Avatar
Uh. Actual models! That would have been cool weeks ago. Failing that, can you ELI5?
Avatar
I am referring to that ridge line at what, from this view, looks to be about 1000 = iot burn
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 3:04 PM
The drop off for iot hip51 Vs 80 over time
Avatar
We had a saying in banking. If it’s so complex that you can’t explain it on a paper napkin, the answer was, “I’m sorry. We don’t have an appetite for that business venture.”
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
The drop off for iot hip51 Vs 80 over time
Isn't it the opposite?
Avatar
Groot needs to re-level that print bed
😆 2
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
We had a saying in banking. If it’s so complex that you can’t explain it on a paper napkin, the answer was, “I’m sorry. We don’t have an appetite for that business venture.”
Name one thing in Helium that you can explain on a napkin
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Name one thing in Helium that you can explain on a napkin
printer go brrr!
🚀 3
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Name one thing in Helium that you can explain on a napkin
DC is pegged at $0. 00001
15:06
Just because it’s complex doesn’t mean it can’t be explained
Avatar
well played
15:07
although a banker would probably hit you with what is this DC you're talking about (edited)
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Isn't it the opposite?
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 3:09 PM
It sorta shows both but if you say mobile booms it's the front line that's most important
Avatar
Avatar
groot
although a banker would probably hit you with what is this DC you're talking about (edited)
Can I use a paper towel instead of a napkin?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 3:10 PM
51 has a slow decrease 80 just starts low and drops a bit then completely
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Can I use a paper towel instead of a napkin?
Is it on one of those 100m rolls?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
to better get my point across I maybe should've led with that it's interactive coolcry
Something I don't understand about the graph. If mobile burns a lot, then we only need to look at the front edge closest to the viewer. Then why is the IOT's DAO score higher with HIP 51? I thought the goal of HIP80 was to "protect" IOT?
Avatar
Questions: 1. Is it correct that this models the onboarding cost of MOBILE at $10? If so, why? If we go with HIP-51, haven’t we heard that MOBILE participants will prefer to pay a $40 onboarding cost for their $2,500+ radios, under the assumption that they won’t be rewarded otherwise? 2. Does this assume that we will reach levels of burn up to $50,000 IOT and $50,000 MOBILE while the number of active MOBILE Hotspots remains at 3,500? Is that realistic? I don’t believe I understand this fully yet.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
51 has a slow decrease 80 just starts low and drops a bit then completely
80 is considerably harsher because you miss the A offset. A works across the board and the floors work until the floor is up.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Can I use a paper towel instead of a napkin?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 3:14 PM
I think the point is the size of the napkin, not the material
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 3:15 PM
Were now being shown it's more about how it's folded
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Questions: 1. Is it correct that this models the onboarding cost of MOBILE at $10? If so, why? If we go with HIP-51, haven’t we heard that MOBILE participants will prefer to pay a $40 onboarding cost for their $2,500+ radios, under the assumption that they won’t be rewarded otherwise? 2. Does this assume that we will reach levels of burn up to $50,000 IOT and $50,000 MOBILE while the number of active MOBILE Hotspots remains at 3,500? Is that realistic? I don’t believe I understand this fully yet.
1) yes, because it was one on of those spreadsheets one of you guys made 2) is it realistic that IOT burns 1M DC with the current hotspots? It's a simulation just as you filled in some arbitrary numbers so did I. There are only so many dimensions to draw in
15:16
I also felt that the $5 from HIP80 was unfair in comparison
Avatar
HIP-80 specifies a $5 minimum onboarding fee. It’s irrelevant to the Score. The last we heard in discussion here is that under HIP-51, it is a desired effect of the A factor that subDAOs will be incentivized to set high onboarding fees, as this would inhibit certain forms of gaming. Under these circumstances, it’s unrealistic to presume that MOBILE will count 3,500 onboards (and not more, as DC burn grows) at $10 each.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
1) yes, because it was one on of those spreadsheets one of you guys made 2) is it realistic that IOT burns 1M DC with the current hotspots? It's a simulation just as you filled in some arbitrary numbers so did I. There are only so many dimensions to draw in
2) 1M DC is $10,000. Is that what you mean? Of course we can burn $10,000 in IOT with the current Hotspots once users come on line. Or do you mean $1M in DC? What does that refer to? (edited)
Avatar
1M usd obv
15:24
You picked some arbitrary numbers for your simulations, so did I yet you act like I picked unrealistic numbers on purpose 🤷
15:25
Not even sure they are unrealistic either, but oh well, I guess just the pink model is valid.
Avatar
What $1M are you talking about? If you want to attack my numbers, pick some and attack them. Did I mention $1M anywhere? I did mention $10M for IOT in one scenario, yes.
15:26
If you attack numbers I didn’t mention and attribute to me, I think I may not be able to participate in the discussion.
Avatar
I didn’t attack your numbers that’s the point, but you’re too combative to see it
15:27
If you looked at the graphs at all you would’ve seen I posted them up to 1M
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 3:27 PM
Chris, and I cannot emphasize this enough, none of this is personal. Please stop feeling like things are personal attacks
15:28
Except Neil, it’s personal with Neil. Fuck that guy.
partyparrot 1
🤣 1
Avatar
You keep acting like everyone disagreeing with you is out to get you, where does that come from? It isn’t very constructive
15:30
You complained nobody but you posts numbers, but when I do I’m supposedly out to attack your numbers? It’s a comparison, if that’s a personal attack in your opinion I have no idea how you think we should discuss HIPs
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Name one thing in Helium that you can explain on a napkin
I have done it successfully with my 80 year old dad
Avatar
Sorry to harp on the transformation of the V portion of the subDAO Utility Score but someone has asked me to do something and I need to get to the bottom of this point. Why are we adding the square root to V? My understanding is because we are worried that a whale will put a lot of veHNT down and do so for 1,440 epochs to get the 100x multiplier and thus have an outsized affect on HNT distribution. If so, that likely yields a very significant positively skewed distribution of veHNT holdings. Given how skewed it is, a square root transformation will not achieve the full effect we desire. This raises log (x) as the better strategy. Does that offend anyone?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
although a banker would probably hit you with what is this DC you're talking about (edited)
Like I said, my 80 year old dad, whom I bought an iPhone for, and had to teach him how to use it was able to understand on a paper napkin. I’ll do it for you at the bar when we have a chance to enjoy a cold one together
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You keep acting like everyone disagreeing with you is out to get you, where does that come from? It isn’t very constructive
I think I’m being quite reasonable. It’s perfectly OK IMO to attack numbers. I was just surprised by that $1M IOT DC burn figure you mentioned in a reply to my question about why you’ve been modeling 3,500 MOBILE Hotspots.
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
DC is pegged at $0. 00001
Ahem $0.000001
🎙️ 1
💧 1
😄 2
❓ 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Ahem $0.000001
I only had a napkin!
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I only had a napkin!
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 3:36 PM
😂 1
Avatar
Did hip 51 get pushed through on some time constraint? It feels like this should have been hashed out then. Now we are in a position with our backs to the wall now with many different interests. Our interest would have been much more aligned then. SMH
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 3:36 PM
DC is 0.00001?
15:37
Every 24 bytes sent in an uplink packet cost 1 DC = $.00001.
☝️ 1
Avatar
Yes. This is actually correct
15:37
All those zeros
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Sorry to harp on the transformation of the V portion of the subDAO Utility Score but someone has asked me to do something and I need to get to the bottom of this point. Why are we adding the square root to V? My understanding is because we are worried that a whale will put a lot of veHNT down and do so for 1,440 epochs to get the 100x multiplier and thus have an outsized affect on HNT distribution. If so, that likely yields a very significant positively skewed distribution of veHNT holdings. Given how skewed it is, a square root transformation will not achieve the full effect we desire. This raises log (x) as the better strategy. Does that offend anyone?
That is a reasonable question. I’m honestly not in a position to answer it. Let’s see whether @JMF is able to shed some further light on the reason why sqrt(veHNT) is a good measure. Intuitively, I think log(veHNT) is too strict and doesn’t allow participants to signal their intent in a meaningful way once a certain base level of veHNT has been delegated, which might also limit the amount of veHNT lockup, which we want to encourage for other reasons. But that’s just my gut feeling, and I don’t want to advance it as an argument at this point.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Did hip 51 get pushed through on some time constraint? It feels like this should have been hashed out then. Now we are in a position with our backs to the wall now with many different interests. Our interest would have been much more aligned then. SMH
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 3:38 PM
Yes, it was rushed and incomplete despite many objections. The chickens have come home to roost.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Every 24 bytes sent in an uplink packet cost 1 DC = $.00001.
Waveform out here with the 90% discount
😆 3
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think I’m being quite reasonable. It’s perfectly OK IMO to attack numbers. I was just surprised by that $1M IOT DC burn figure you mentioned in a reply to my question about why you’ve been modeling 3,500 MOBILE Hotspots.
if you say so
Avatar
Avatar
groot
if you say so
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 3:39 PM
Let's try not to be passive aggressive, ok?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
if you say so
What is that supposed to mean? Leaving that aside, I did look at the graphs you posted, and I was unable to see how any of them shows a situation where any subDAO burns $1M worth of DC. Which is it? You posted above If you looked at the graphs at all you would’ve seen I posted them up to 1M and I quite honestly don’t see it.
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Yes. This is actually correct
Joey calls it a micro $
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Waveform out here with the 90% discount
Ive spent too much time in the upside down Aussie discord (edited)
😅 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Yes, it was rushed and incomplete despite many objections. The chickens have come home to roost.
I am slowly losing faith, sad really!I feel like it’s inevitable now that iot is going to get the shaft on the long run. 🤷‍♂️ jmo. And the iot community voted for this supposedly. Lol
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Let's try not to be passive aggressive, ok?
birdwitharms 04/06/2023 3:46 PM
Groot is Dutch. They are allowed to be blunt (read “jerks”) for some societal reason 🤷‍♀️
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Did hip 51 get pushed through on some time constraint? It feels like this should have been hashed out then. Now we are in a position with our backs to the wall now with many different interests. Our interest would have been much more aligned then. SMH
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 3:47 PM
Quite the opposite. It took forever to pass with tons of back and forth
Avatar
Avatar
groot
1) yes, because it was one on of those spreadsheets one of you guys made 2) is it realistic that IOT burns 1M DC with the current hotspots? It's a simulation just as you filled in some arbitrary numbers so did I. There are only so many dimensions to draw in
Furthermore, from what I have understood so far, all the graphs you’ve posted keep the number of MOBILE Hotspots fixed at 3,500. Is that correct? If so, I don’t understand the reasoning behind that. Can you explain the scenario you’re modeling? For example, in what scenario do we see MOBILE DC Burn in a range from 0 to $50,000/month, IOT DC Burn in a range from 0 to $50,000/month, while the number of MOBILE Hotspots stays fixed at 3,500, and not even the remaining 6,500 MOBILE Hotspots that have also been sold are onboarded, let alone any new MOBILE Hotspots sold?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Quite the opposite. It took forever to pass with tons of back and forth
How long is forever?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 3:48 PM
Like 6 months
15:48
The problem wasn’t the time constraint but more the shear number problems it created and tried solve.
Avatar
Now it’s true that under HIP-51, if the number of MOBILE Hotspots that are counted (let's stay with “active”, I believe that is the correct measure), and if MOBILE onboarding is reset to $10, which does not conform to HIP-53, but would be possible under the new HIP draft you posted as a PR, the A factor of MOBILE would be very low. But is that a realistic scenario?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 3:49 PM
I guess you could argue Pollen created a time constraint because while there were no rewards for MOBILE, Dish went ahead and invested in a competitor
Avatar
Avatar
groot
1) yes, because it was one on of those spreadsheets one of you guys made 2) is it realistic that IOT burns 1M DC with the current hotspots? It's a simulation just as you filled in some arbitrary numbers so did I. There are only so many dimensions to draw in
(My last comment above is directed at groot also.)
Avatar
Avatar
birdwitharms
Groot is Dutch. They are allowed to be blunt (read “jerks”) for some societal reason 🤷‍♀️
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 3:52 PM
Also not helpful... Also, wtf?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Also not helpful... Also, wtf?
Got a day's timeout for that
🙏 1
Avatar
So anyway, groot has posted graphs which are probably computationally correct (I trust his technical skills), but which are based on assumptions which I find largely irrelevant to the question at hand. - under HIP-51, I assume MOBILE would stay with the $40 onboarding fee specified in HIP-53, rather than dropping it to $10 and thus impairing the MOBILE Utility Score, and - it’s extremely unlikely that MOBILE will stay at 3,500 active Hotspots. We expect it to grow quickly, particularly once the low-cost Wi-Fi Hotspots which capcom has discussed become available at low cost. So I question whether the graphs are actually meaningful.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So anyway, groot has posted graphs which are probably computationally correct (I trust his technical skills), but which are based on assumptions which I find largely irrelevant to the question at hand. - under HIP-51, I assume MOBILE would stay with the $40 onboarding fee specified in HIP-53, rather than dropping it to $10 and thus impairing the MOBILE Utility Score, and - it’s extremely unlikely that MOBILE will stay at 3,500 active Hotspots. We expect it to grow quickly, particularly once the low-cost Wi-Fi Hotspots which capcom has discussed become available at low cost. So I question whether the graphs are actually meaningful.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 3:59 PM
I don’t know that we can immediately assume helium mobile will have so much growth so fast
Avatar
I’ll repost my expanded “pink” model sheet here. Please anybody send me requests if you feel another reasonable scenario should be added, and I’ll consider it.
15:59
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t know that we can immediately assume helium mobile will have so much growth so fast
Do you believe the number of active Hotspots in MOBILE will stay fixed at 3,500?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:00 PM
Tokenized CBRS offload is a pretty crowded space
16:00
Isn’t it 8,632?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Isn’t it 8,632?
I think that’s the number of radios, isn’t it?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:01 PM
Pollen hit a sticking point around 1,000 radios, XNet at 48 radios.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Isn’t it 8,632?
As I understand groot above, his diagrams are all based on 3,500 MOBILE Hotspots. Which is true now (I used 4,000), but is not likely to stay true for long unless we fail.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:01 PM
Oh are we still assuming mobile uses gateways as the onboarded hardware? That would be a terrible decision
Avatar
I think it’s arrogant to assume that you’re the only one qualified to throw some numbers at the wall and call it a model. Also, when you start with “ Uh. Actual models! That would have been cool weeks ago. Failing that, can you ELI5?”, don’t expect much from me.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh are we still assuming mobile uses gateways as the onboarded hardware? That would be a terrible decision
The last I heard from Noah is that he is counting private keys, and AFAIK there is no cryptographically secure way to associate private keys with radios.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:03 PM
Is there a HIP that told Noah to count private keys?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think it’s arrogant to assume that you’re the only one qualified to throw some numbers at the wall and call it a model. Also, when you start with “ Uh. Actual models! That would have been cool weeks ago. Failing that, can you ELI5?”, don’t expect much from me.
I honestly found the graphs difficult to understand at first. That is, if anything, a comment on my abilities, not yours.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:04 PM
The mobile subDAO is able to figure out which radios are connected to which gateways to reward them and the mobile subDAO reports the number of active radios under HIP-51. Not sure where private keys and cryptographic security came in
Avatar
If people start calling me out on being passive aggressive that would’ve been a good comment to start
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:05 PM
Maybe you guys use private keys and onboarding over in IOT world but in America, our CBRS networks just yolo that stuff and don’t burn HNT
Avatar
AFAIK, ELI5 is generally not understood to insult the person it is directed at. If you found it offensive, I apologize, as that was not the intent. The rest of my post was snarky, and I do apologize for that.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The mobile subDAO is able to figure out which radios are connected to which gateways to reward them and the mobile subDAO reports the number of active radios under HIP-51. Not sure where private keys and cryptographic security came in
You're not but Noah is and he's the dev.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:07 PM
Wasn’t Noah’s company acquired by Helium Foundation to implement things the community voted for? Why does he get to make any decisions?
16:08
If he wants cryptographic keys to be the way to count onboards then he can write a MIP like everyone else (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Like 6 months
Lol sounds like it was pushed through. The hip 51 vote fundamentally changed the entire project. 6 months is laughable. Anyhow it is what it is now.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Maybe you guys use private keys and onboarding over in IOT world but in America, our CBRS networks just yolo that stuff and don’t burn HNT
That really isn’t the question we’re discussing here though. I accept groot’s assumption that the current number of “Active” “Devices” (quoting HIP-51) in MOBILE is currently 3,500. That’s reasonably close to the number 4,000 which I used as a starting figure that I think we can both agree. However, I question the assumption that we will reach the larger DC Burn numbers shown in the graphs while the number of MOBILE Hotspots remains at 3,500. In my model, I provided various speculative scenarios showing possible growth trajectories of both networks. I’m eager to hear arguments for other possible growth trajectories.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:10 PM
Yea I mean whatever, all of the models have shitty assumptions
16:10
I’ve seen the assumptions everyone has been making. That’s why I think veHNT square root thing should wait to see how much veHNT actually gets staked
Avatar
You can’t throw 10M usd at 400k iot gateways and then complain 3500 gateways, not radios, can’t handle some DC
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea I mean whatever, all of the models have shitty assumptions
If my model has shitty assumptions, let me know, and we can discuss it, if you provide reasons and alternative positions. I think groot’s use of 3,500 MOBILE Hotspots for all scenario is, to use your term, a “shitty assumption”. Is nobody ever going to deploy again? Well, if so, we might as well all pack up and go home immediately.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:12 PM
I’m already home
16:12
WFH life
🤘 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Joey calls it a micro $
Joey 0x00003C 04/06/2023 4:13 PM
10 microdollars 🤏
💸 3
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You can’t throw 10M usd at 400k iot gateways and then complain 3500 gateways, not radios, can’t handle some DC
Well, what does @BFGNeil - Trackpac.io have to say to that? If we implement new incentives (capcom’s overcrowding slashing proposal, for example), and many hotspots go offline, and new ones are deployed, and sensors go online, is it unreasonable to do $10M/month eventually over 500,000 IOT gateways? Sure, this is hundreds of millions of sensors. It’s a far-out scenario, if IOT hits a home-run. That’s how it’s labeled.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:15 PM
Eventually maybe but that's a long ways off , long long ways
Avatar
Exactly.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:16 PM
I was looking at the $75k figure imo that's 10m devices
16:16
That's 10x of ttn
Avatar
But the number of gateways is not ridiculous IMO, if the sensors come.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:16 PM
Ttn took years to get to 1m and many believe it's fake news even now
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Wasn’t Noah’s company acquired by Helium Foundation to implement things the community voted for? Why does he get to make any decisions?
This is counter productive. I see a pattern that develops when others don’t agree. There must be better ways to build consensus.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, what does @BFGNeil - Trackpac.io have to say to that? If we implement new incentives (capcom’s overcrowding slashing proposal, for example), and many hotspots go offline, and new ones are deployed, and sensors go online, is it unreasonable to do $10M/month eventually over 500,000 IOT gateways? Sure, this is hundreds of millions of sensors. It’s a far-out scenario, if IOT hits a home-run. That’s how it’s labeled.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:17 PM
The numbers actually show the slashing HIP won’t affect the number of online hotspots very much. Most of the hotspots in those hexes are offline
👆 1
Avatar
You can do 160k USD a month per gateway at 50c / GB
16:17
And on that bombshell, good night.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You can do 160k USD a month per gateway at 50c / GB
My question is, are you arguing that we will not have more than 3,500 MOBILE Hotspots online over the longer term? I find it difficult to believe you are suggesting that in good faith, especially considering that 10,000 gateways have already been sold, and capcom is talking about $100 Wi-Fi gateways for MOBILE. If you do believe that, maybe you can explain your reasoning further, so I can follow.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:20 PM
So just to confirm , there are 2 views now, hip80 or keep 51? No other proposals?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So just to confirm , there are 2 views now, hip80 or keep 51? No other proposals?
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/06/2023 4:20 PM
You could write one too, Neil 💪
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
My question is, are you arguing that we will not have more than 3,500 MOBILE Hotspots online over the longer term? I find it difficult to believe you are suggesting that in good faith, especially considering that 10,000 gateways have already been sold, and capcom is talking about $100 Wi-Fi gateways for MOBILE. If you do believe that, maybe you can explain your reasoning further, so I can follow.
nosmaster89 04/06/2023 4:20 PM
when were light hotspots coming. big up cap but his timescales cannot be trusted
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:20 PM
There are some HIPs in the pipeline to fix the onboarding issue and to revamp to the A score
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
You could write one too, Neil 💪
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:21 PM
Everyone gets stroopwaffles, max gets coal. Done.
😂 3
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Everyone gets stroopwaffles, max gets coal. Done.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:21 PM
OPEC just announced they’re cutting production. I accept these terms
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So just to confirm , there are 2 views now, hip80 or keep 51? No other proposals?
groot and Max have two PRs up with additional HIP drafts, #606 and #607. In my view, they do not solve all the issues outlined in the Motivation section of HIP-80, which are what I consider to be important considerations… (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:22 PM
So there are 4 options now?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
My question is, are you arguing that we will not have more than 3,500 MOBILE Hotspots online over the longer term? I find it difficult to believe you are suggesting that in good faith, especially considering that 10,000 gateways have already been sold, and capcom is talking about $100 Wi-Fi gateways for MOBILE. If you do believe that, maybe you can explain your reasoning further, so I can follow.
I never suggested that but like the floor = 7 you’re finding entropy where none exist. It’s a [censored] model, stop pretending you’re the only one trying to model stuff in good faith (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:23 PM
We could get behind a veHNT HIP to blunt the V score but waiting to see how the numbers shake out in 2 weeks
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:23 PM
Ooh you made Groot swear
coolcry 1
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
groot and Max have two PRs up with additional HIP drafts, #606 and #607. In my view, they do not solve all the issues outlined in the Motivation section of HIP-80, which are what I consider to be important considerations… (edited)
Battle of the HIPs:). Helium drama.
🎸 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:23 PM
Lol
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:23 PM
606 and 607 don’t compete with each other. Just more surgical approaches to solve different problems (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:24 PM
I'm struggling to see all the paths, so we have 51,80 and 2 drafts
16:24
Are the drafts suggesting changes to hip51/80 or new ideas?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I never suggested that but like the floor = 7 you’re finding entropy where none exist. It’s a [censored] model, stop pretending you’re the only one trying to model stuff in good faith (edited)
I have a proposal, which contains the Floor of 7 as we’ve discussed... My model presents possible scenarios. If anybody would like to see an additional scenario, ping me, we’ll discuss it, and I’ll consider adding it to the model. My question to you is whether your models present any realistic scenarios whatsoever. In my view, they don’t, except for what are presented in the graphs as edge cases.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So there are 4 options now?
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/06/2023 4:25 PM
5th with yours.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:25 PM
One requires an onboard DC burn. the other simplifies the calculus for the A score and takes it out of the hands of the subDAOs (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
One requires an onboard DC burn. the other simplifies the calculus for the A score and takes it out of the hands of the subDAOs (edited)
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:25 PM
This is altering 51?
16:25
So it's 3 routes for 51, and one suggested route for 80?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I have a proposal, which contains the Floor of 7 as we’ve discussed... My model presents possible scenarios. If anybody would like to see an additional scenario, ping me, we’ll discuss it, and I’ll consider adding it to the model. My question to you is whether your models present any realistic scenarios whatsoever. In my view, they don’t, except for what are presented in the graphs as edge cases.
100% or are you saying we can’t reach 100k DC with 3500 mobile gateways?
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
5th with yours.
Stroopwaffle hip 🙂
👍 1
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
This is altering 51?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:26 PM
Kinda. The HIPs are solving some of the same issues as 80 does for 51 but broken into different HIPs and much smaller scope
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:27 PM
Can the 2 alts be merged into one or is the point to do it in stages?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Are the drafts suggesting changes to hip51/80 or new ideas?
In my view, PR #607 is irrelevant under HIP-80, as HIP-80 does not use the A factor to which it applies. PR #606 specifies a minimum onboarding fee of $5 and associated clauses. In my view, I have already incorporated the minimum onboarding fee clause, and the other items are not relevant to HIP-80. Thus, PR #606 and 607 are only relevant to HIP-51 in my view.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:27 PM
They tackle completely different issues so we feel it doesn’t make sense for them to be in a single HIP
16:28
We’re also anti-big bloated HIP
❤️ 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:28 PM
Ok I guess the question is, really, how urgent is this?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:28 PM
I think all 3 can wait til after migration
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:28 PM
Mobile won't get anything if nothing is done right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:29 PM
Minimum onboard I could see an argument for before but I don’t actually know if a burn function exists that can technically be used before the migration anyway
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We could get behind a veHNT HIP to blunt the V score but waiting to see how the numbers shake out in 2 weeks
This is being drafted tonight. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
100% or are you saying we can’t reach 100k DC with 3500 mobile gateways?
I find it hard to believe that you are suggesting in good faith: Helium MOBILE will be successful (to the degree that it burns $100,000 of DC/month), but the number of Helium MOBILE Hotspots will not rise above 3,500. I assert that that is an almost impossible situation. Of course we could burn $100,000 with 3,500 Hotspots, but that will never happen, in my view. If MOBILE is that successful, it is unavoidable that there will be many more MOBILE Hotspots onboarded, even without the preannounced $100 Wi-Fi Hotspots for MOBILE.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Mobile won't get anything if nothing is done right?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:30 PM
Mobile’s HNT will mostly be influenced by veHNT delegation. If nothing is done between now and then, IOT will have 63x advantage in the A score
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
This is being drafted tonight. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:31 PM
I like the idea of having it ready but really think our best bet is to wait until we see how much veHNT gets staked
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I like the idea of having it ready but really think our best bet is to wait until we see how much veHNT gets staked
Understand. So day 11 we assess the veHNT staking environment and change the transformation value.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I find it hard to believe that you are suggesting in good faith: Helium MOBILE will be successful (to the degree that it burns $100,000 of DC/month), but the number of Helium MOBILE Hotspots will not rise above 3,500. I assert that that is an almost impossible situation. Of course we could burn $100,000 with 3,500 Hotspots, but that will never happen, in my view. If MOBILE is that successful, it is unavoidable that there will be many more MOBILE Hotspots onboarded, even without the preannounced $100 Wi-Fi Hotspots for MOBILE.
To clarify, this is why I believe that groot’s graphs do not show any situation that is, in practice, plausible. Again, I’m happy to add plausible scenarios to my “pink model”.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Understand. So day 11 we assess the veHNT staking environment and change the transformation value.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:33 PM
Yea, it could also be that we see it’s not worth changing. If there is an insanely huge amount of veHNT it’ll be pretty difficult for a singular whale to have huge influence
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I like the idea of having it ready but really think our best bet is to wait until we see how much veHNT gets staked
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:34 PM
Just asking, shouldn't this be laid out so people know how their stacking works for the network?
16:35
Rather than after?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea, it could also be that we see it’s not worth changing. If there is an insanely huge amount of veHNT it’ll be pretty difficult for a singular whale to have huge influence
I am worried the 100x multiplier versus desire for liquidity means you will have a heavily skewed distribution of staking. A transformation would still be desirous even if a boatload of HNT gets staked. That is, you would want to blunt the effect of those doing 100x as they have a fabulously large advantage. However, that leverage is kind of sort of the purpose of the bonus value.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:35 PM
Anyone who is paying attention knows this potential HIP is coming. It’ll also be those that stake that determine if they want to pass it or not
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:36 PM
Discord is a bubble
16:36
Info doesn't spread out much
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:36 PM
It’s being drafted in github
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:36 PM
GitHub for geeks
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:36 PM
DYOR before locking up your tokens for 4 years
💯 1
16:36
Or vote against it
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:36 PM
Right but your saying to vote after they've locked it up?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:37 PM
Yes but those that lock are the only ones who vote
Avatar
Will I be able to download each night data that indicates all of the current staked positions?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:37 PM
There is uncertainty at the time of locking that gets offset by a 3x increase in veHNT
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:38 PM
Here me out, if mobile stakes a lot wouldn't they vote for whatever means mobile earns more straight away?
👆 1
16:38
Or visa verse
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:38 PM
That already exists though with HNT voting
👆 1
16:39
100% of the earned HNT has gone to IOT and only that HNT has the ability to get a 3x landrush bonus (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:39 PM
I'm just saying, is there a path where it can be solved before?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:39 PM
Yes but I’m not sure it’s any different before or after for this specific HIP
👍 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:40 PM
So your preferred action is hip51 as is, with some changes after staking goes live for a bit?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:40 PM
We don’t know if square root is the right number, third root, fourth root etc. I think there is value in waiting to see
Avatar
For MOBILE if D =1 and A = 1 then the only utility score is V initially
Avatar
If your goal is to merely blunt the effects of the extremes, then log (x) doesn't care if a lot is staked or not.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:41 PM
I just haven’t seen any models showing anything
Avatar
I showed models above!
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:41 PM
I’ve been told JMF says it’s important, that’s about it
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I showed models above!
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:42 PM
Is it pinned?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:42 PM
The jmf figures would be nice
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I showed models above!
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 4:42 PM
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I just haven’t seen any models showing anything
Do the models we’ve seen for the comparisons between HIP-80 and HIP-51, disregarding the V factor, show you anything?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:43 PM
I meant for the V score
Avatar
no. just shows the mild difference between square root and log (x). Log (x) is more aggressive. It is the better choice when the skewness is higher; which is basically pre-determined for HNT staking given the 3x and 100x multipliers that are available. (edited)
16:44
And with a timeline that uses the word "decade" as Boris used this morning, then 1,440 epochs is not really that much of a commitment. (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:45 PM
How about we try and all agree some models to try, eg low high medium on mobile and a reasonable guess of iot based on growth figures so far?
16:45
That can include hotspots etc
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
How about we try and all agree some models to try, eg low high medium on mobile and a reasonable guess of iot based on growth figures so far?
Thats what Ferebee has been requesting
👍 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:48 PM
One issue is the bias towards getting a desired result. Thats how we ended up with 40 and 7 as plugs
Avatar
I predict three groups of stakers. Those that lean hard towards 1,461 epochs. Those that lean hard towards 183 epochs. And those that spread it out as evenly as feasible between 183 epochs and 1,461 epochs. And of course the group of non-stakers. Probably greater in numbers than stakers and potentially greater amount of HNT. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:50 PM
Which created the next problem of what if the land scape changes how to we get that changed? Then it became chain vars that get changed by a working group, how do we decide the working group? Just more an more questions
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I predict three groups of stakers. Those that lean hard towards 1,461 epochs. Those that lean hard towards 183 epochs. And those that spread it out as evenly as feasible between 183 epochs and 1,461 epochs. And of course the group of non-stakers. Probably greater in numbers than stakers and potentially greater amount of HNT. (edited)
By 1,440, do you mean 4 years? FWIW, “4 years” AKA “48 months” is actually defined as 1,461 days. Not that that’s our most pressing issue here.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
By 1,440, do you mean 4 years? FWIW, “4 years” AKA “48 months” is actually defined as 1,461 days. Not that that’s our most pressing issue here.
fixed. I just did 48 times 30.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Thats what Ferebee has been requesting
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:50 PM
So part of Max's suggestion is waiting, what's the urgent part of this, just to get something in before staking happens on the 18th? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Which created the next problem of what if the land scape changes how to we get that changed? Then it became chain vars that get changed by a working group, how do we decide the working group? Just more an more questions
Also BTW, under the Solana architecture, chain vars get changed by on-chain governance.
😬 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:52 PM
HIP-51 isn’t perfect but it solved the issue of adding more subDAOs without having to make ad hoc changes. There are tweaks that can be made that still programmatically determine the value of each subDAO (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So part of Max's suggestion is waiting, what's the urgent part of this, just to get something in before staking happens on the 18th? (edited)
On the dev side, its much more of a PITA to change the utility score on a running system than before. So its prefered to do it now. Otherwise MOBILE has the A value at 1 and onboarding new 5G hotspots costs $0 which isnt what everyone really wants
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Also BTW, under the Solana architecture, chain vars get changed by on-chain governance.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 4:53 PM
That sounds... slow and messy
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:53 PM
Remember the voice chat the day of the HIP-37 community call?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
That sounds... slow and messy
It is what it is.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
On the dev side, its much more of a PITA to change the utility score on a running system than before. So its prefered to do it now. Otherwise MOBILE has the A value at 1 and onboarding new 5G hotspots costs $0 which isnt what everyone really wants
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:54 PM
No we’re adding a HIP to make a minimum onboard requirement. Otherwise that actually seems to be what MOBILE subDAO wants
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
On the dev side, its much more of a PITA to change the utility score on a running system than before. So its prefered to do it now. Otherwise MOBILE has the A value at 1 and onboarding new 5G hotspots costs $0 which isnt what everyone really wants
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:55 PM
Pita because it needs re- auditing or because of other reasons?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
That sounds... slow and messy
For better or for worse, most urgent matters will probably be in the hands of offchain oracles for the near future.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:55 PM
Also this HIP was first proposed two days after the initial announced migration date. If it was that dire, it would have been done before. Otherwise we would have migrated before this HIP anyway
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Pita because it needs re- auditing or because of other reasons?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 4:56 PM
Like changing the name of a doc while it's open. 😉
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No we’re adding a HIP to make a minimum onboard requirement. Otherwise that actually seems to be what MOBILE subDAO wants
Which would mean this HIP80 has to pass now if you want that
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:57 PM
There’s a PR for a stand alone HIP doing that. We don’t need rush the overhaul of the utility score for one piece that can be passed on its own.
16:57
You’d make a great congressman* *this wasn’t an insult. I love my congressman, she never answers any of my letters or emails. She’s the best. (edited)
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Like changing the name of a doc while it's open. 😉
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:58 PM
just wondering what makes it hard, is that a reaudit or just code changes or new contracts or other things , that kinda shows how urgent it is
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Pita because it needs re- auditing or because of other reasons?
We are well past the stage of trying to come up with new ways of calculating "active devices" for the migration day. But its still a PITA if we modify the Score after the migration even using existing variables.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 4:58 PM
Saying it's a pita doesn't explain why it's a pita
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
We are well past the stage of trying to come up with new ways of calculating "active devices" for the migration day. But its still a PITA if we modify the Score after the migration even using existing variables.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 4:59 PM
Who is calculating active devices though? Is Helium DAO doing that because that isn’t correct.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also this HIP was first proposed two days after the initial announced migration date. If it was that dire, it would have been done before. Otherwise we would have migrated before this HIP anyway
Another reason is that the original issue, missing onboarding fees for MOBILE, has been known since October, and many of us, myself included, talked about it going around and around in circles, without actually doing anything. Does anybody else occur to me who likes to go around and around in circles talking smack without ever actually doing anything? I’ll have to think about that.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Another reason is that the original issue, missing onboarding fees for MOBILE, has been known since October, and many of us, myself included, talked about it going around and around in circles, without actually doing anything. Does anybody else occur to me who likes to go around and around in circles talking smack without ever actually doing anything? I’ll have to think about that.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:00 PM
Maybe it’s because the fourth root doesn’t have enough teeth so the MOBILE subDAO doesn’t particularly care to fix it
Avatar
fourth root is more appropriate for negatively skewed distributions.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Maybe it’s because the fourth root doesn’t have enough teeth so the MOBILE subDAO doesn’t particularly care to fix it
Other things being equal, a factor of 8 doesn’t seem irrelevant to me.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:01 PM
Take it up with the mobile subDAO. They made their choice
17:02
Which FWIW, is not how we wanted it to go which is why the minimum onboard HIP should exist
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Take it up with the mobile subDAO. They made their choice
I am, actually. I am suggesting the MOBILE subDAO, among others, vote for HIP-80.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:07 PM
Do we need a temp check to choose between 51, or keep going with 80? sounds like we're at a impass?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:07 PM
Let’s just take a step back here. HIP 80 feels insanely rushed and filled with arbitrary numbers as a result. If the migration day was tomorrow, what would be broken if HIP-80 doesn’t pass by then? (edited)
17:07
We should then look at fixing just those things
Avatar
no onboarding fees paid by mobile subDAO
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
no onboarding fees paid by mobile subDAO
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:08 PM
Is there a mechanism for the mobile subDAO to onboard devices right now?
Avatar
in my opinion, everything else can be tolerated.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:08 PM
I’d argue even that piece isn’t broken, it’s just a 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Is there a mechanism for the mobile subDAO to onboard devices right now?
Yes. but it is significantly easier afterwards
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’d argue even that piece isn’t broken, it’s just a 1
valid point
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:09 PM
I don’t think there is. You can’t double onboard a hotspot
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We should then look at fixing just those things
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:09 PM
I agree, if we went live , what breaks, what's urgent (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:09 PM
I think nothing breaks, some things are inconvenient (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t think there is. You can’t double onboard a hotspot
every wallet simply pays a specific wallet, payment transaction shows which has been "onboarded". I didn't say it was elegant.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:10 PM
Jmf feels the vehnt stuff breaks right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:10 PM
No, it might get scaled back, it might not
Avatar
the appeal of 100x suggests that might be true
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:11 PM
JMF feels there could be a scenario where some whale skews the score too much
Avatar
but 100x goes both to mobile and iot
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Is there a mechanism for the mobile subDAO to onboard devices right now?
No mechanism exists by which MOBILE devices can onboard towards the MOBILE subDAO. This was neglected in the implementation of HIP-53. Only the LoRa portion was onboarded, because the entire issue was not considered. HIP-53 actually specifies an onboarding fee of $40, but in my reading, that was intended to apply to MOBILE. Later, the LoRa functionality was added to the design of the Hotspots, and the implementation onboarded the IOT side but not the MOBILE side. HIP-53 did not originally consider dual-network Hotspots, as far as I understand it.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:11 PM
Hope it's iot 😉
Avatar
Aren't we really only concerned about a massive difference in delegation rather than concerned about staking? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:11 PM
If we have 1B veHNT (which I think is possible) it doesnt feel like a legitimate concern
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If we have 1B veHNT (which I think is possible) it doesnt feel like a legitimate concern
unless most of it is to mobile (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:12 PM
So if it happens like jmf says it does, what are the implications, can we mitigate that in any way?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
No mechanism exists by which MOBILE devices can onboard towards the MOBILE subDAO. This was neglected in the implementation of HIP-53. Only the LoRa portion was onboarded, because the entire issue was not considered. HIP-53 actually specifies an onboarding fee of $40, but in my reading, that was intended to apply to MOBILE. Later, the LoRa functionality was added to the design of the Hotspots, and the implementation onboarded the IOT side but not the MOBILE side. HIP-53 did not originally consider dual-network Hotspots, as far as I understand it.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:12 PM
LoRa was not added later. FreedomFi started taking preorders on the LoRa/5G gateways a full year before HIP-53
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
LoRa was not added later. FreedomFi started taking preorders on the LoRa/5G gateways a full year before HIP-53
That makes sense. In that case, HIP-53 simply did not consider it.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So if it happens like jmf says it does, what are the implications, can we mitigate that in any way?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:13 PM
The same veHNT stakers that plan on doing that next month would theoretically be able to vote down a HIP preventing them from doing it without needing to lock up HNT
Avatar
Any transformation of the amount staked will only have a mild attenuation of the distribution on delegation.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:14 PM
It’s a really low risk doomsday scenario that changing today is no different than changing later. Arguably easier to change later because of the required stake to vote
Avatar
massive difference in delegation is the only thing that breaks anything (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That makes sense. In that case, HIP-53 simply did not consider it.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 5:15 PM
Let's not re-write history here. The concerns were brought up and the company line folks shouted them down. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Let's not re-write history here. The concerns were brought up and the company line folks shouted them down. (edited)
I freely admit I wasn’t paying to attention all the discussions. Perhaps I should say, HIP-53 did not include a provision to properly pay an onboarding fee towards each subDAO. (edited)
🤝 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:16 PM
It's interesting that mobile hasn't settled on fees or what to count , knowing 51 counted onboarding tho, why's it so last minute
17:16
Must have seen this coming
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:17 PM
Mobile’s problem is no one wants to pay (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:17 PM
Right
17:17
What about my suggestion a few days back
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:17 PM
Everyone wants cheaper onboards which is fine but we should reward IOT for paying $40
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
What about my suggestion a few days back
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 5:18 PM
Which one?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:18 PM
If it has to be taken, it's taken from the treasury at a higher rate
17:18
Unless it's decided and they pay?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Mobile’s problem is no one wants to pay (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 5:18 PM
Don't they shoot themselves in the foot by not paying though?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:18 PM
51 was voted in...
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Everyone wants cheaper onboards which is fine but we should reward IOT for paying $40
As you like to point out, they did already get two-thirds of all HNT that will ever exist, at least that’s something. Might not be enough I guess.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:18 PM
Oh that got railroaded by Noah who is Anti-Slashing but then found out slashing was voted in
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
As you like to point out, they did already get two-thirds of all HNT that will ever exist, at least that’s something. Might not be enough I guess.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 5:19 PM
That 2/3rds is highly concentrated to a few wallets...
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:19 PM
So @Max - Just Max you think the onboarding things going to be resolved for mobile , asking as you're in the wg
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
That 2/3rds is highly concentrated to a few wallets...
Sounds like some people sold, which is a perfectly valid strategy. Depending which price they sold at, that may have also come with rewards.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:20 PM
I have total confidence in every member of the mobile working group to come to a number that makes sense. Every member of the working group is upstanding community member who I fully respect.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
That 2/3rds is highly concentrated to a few wallets...
Actually, I should correct myself. Probably only something under half of all HNT went to IOT. A good bit went to the HST holders, as it should.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Sounds like some people sold, which is a perfectly valid strategy. Depending which price they sold at, that may have also come with rewards.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 5:21 PM
Not enough to matter. The argument of "IOT already got most of the HNT" doesn't mean a thing to people that joined within the last year or so. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Actually, I should correct myself. Probably only something under half of all HNT went to IOT. A good bit went to the HST holders, as it should.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 5:21 PM
Ah well yes, I was already counting the HST holders in that. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Not enough to matter. The argument of "IOT already got most of the HNT" doesn't mean a thing to people that joined within the last year or so. (edited)
We could agree to stop bringing up that argument. I’d be on board with that. 😆
👍 1
🍻 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:22 PM
Well HST holders are the true “early investors”
Avatar
Absolutely. Respect your investors.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
As you like to point out, they did already get two-thirds of all HNT that will ever exist, at least that’s something. Might not be enough I guess.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:22 PM
That’s what they got for being early. There should be more rewards for burning HNT
Avatar
Why weren’t 5g hs owners paying the fee to start? I missed that somewhere?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:24 PM
The mechanism didn’t exist
17:25
There was also an assumption that gateways = radios that in practice I think like half the gateways have radios and the gateways that do have an average of 3
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:25 PM
So @ferebee if max is right and mobile onboarding fees are solved, is there anything else that you view needs changing about 51, you view jmf's Doomsday as more urgent right? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
If it has to be taken, it's taken from the treasury at a higher rate
Noah has pointed out that it’s fairly easy to add slashing as such, but it’s quite difficult to work out a safe and appropriate way to check who decides on the slashing. The slashing specified in HIP-51 will presumably be implemented through veHNT governance. In the abstract, it would be nice to slash the “missing HNT” for missing MOBILE onboards through a smart contract, but then it becomes very difficult to provide correct inputs to that contract, like how much HNT is actually missing, and when to slash it.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So @ferebee if max is right and mobile onboarding fees are solved, is there anything else that you view needs changing about 51, you view jmf's Doomsday as more urgent right? (edited)
Changing about 51?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The mechanism didn’t exist
Seriously. Wow. What a cluster. Lol
💯 1
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:26 PM
51 yeah (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Noah has pointed out that it’s fairly easy to add slashing as such, but it’s quite difficult to work out a safe and appropriate way to check who decides on the slashing. The slashing specified in HIP-51 will presumably be implemented through veHNT governance. In the abstract, it would be nice to slash the “missing HNT” for missing MOBILE onboards through a smart contract, but then it becomes very difficult to provide correct inputs to that contract, like how much HNT is actually missing, and when to slash it.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:26 PM
HIP-53 gives helium foundation the right to do that
17:27
Mobile Subdao can (and should) change that right later if they want but if the mobile subDAO wants, it could request the HNT be burned from the treasury fund
17:29
Also, technically there would be no reason for Helium DAO to slash if there is no minimum onboard fee.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:32 PM
We don't need slashing if onboarding fees are paid tho? And a minimum is set (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:33 PM
Right
17:34
The slashing would require another HIP
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The slashing would require another HIP
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:34 PM
Not technically, it's talked about in 51 I thought?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:35 PM
Ehh but we’d need to figure out what the penalty is, who does it, etc
17:35
Technically no rules are being broken right now by simply not onboarding devices and reporting a 0 to the helium DAO
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:38 PM
And they suffer already, no hnt going to the mobile treasury (edited)
17:39
Don't need slashing to penalise them for not paying onboarding
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So @ferebee if max is right and mobile onboarding fees are solved, is there anything else that you view needs changing about 51, you view jmf's Doomsday as more urgent right? (edited)
Well, I see multiple disadvantages in HIP-51 as it stands. My view on that is explained in the Motivation section of HIP-80. Initially, I tried to find a solution to the missing MOBILE onboarding fees. That resulted in HIP-78. Then, among other things, my suggestion that Foundation facilitate somebody paying the missing fees didn’t work out because nobody wanted to pay. So now I’ve been working on this subject for several weeks, talking to various people, trying to understand nuances of the implementation, along with my coauthors, who provided valuable insights of their own. I welcome suggestions for improvements to HIP-80, with an explanation of how and what they improve, and we will consider them. If they convince us, we will implement them. We’ve had several so far. Some people don’t like HIP-80, and would rather keep HIP-51, and propose other HIPs to fix what they see as its disadvantages. That’s fine, good luck with that. Better ideas may yet come to light. I don’t have any. What we do have to offer is HIP-80. If there are no suggestions how HIP-80 should be improved, I think we might as well put HIP-80 to a vote.
ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 04/06/2023 5:44 PM
Avatar
Good night! See y’all tomorrow.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, I see multiple disadvantages in HIP-51 as it stands. My view on that is explained in the Motivation section of HIP-80. Initially, I tried to find a solution to the missing MOBILE onboarding fees. That resulted in HIP-78. Then, among other things, my suggestion that Foundation facilitate somebody paying the missing fees didn’t work out because nobody wanted to pay. So now I’ve been working on this subject for several weeks, talking to various people, trying to understand nuances of the implementation, along with my coauthors, who provided valuable insights of their own. I welcome suggestions for improvements to HIP-80, with an explanation of how and what they improve, and we will consider them. If they convince us, we will implement them. We’ve had several so far. Some people don’t like HIP-80, and would rather keep HIP-51, and propose other HIPs to fix what they see as its disadvantages. That’s fine, good luck with that. Better ideas may yet come to light. I don’t have any. What we do have to offer is HIP-80. If there are no suggestions how HIP-80 should be improved, I think we might as well put HIP-80 to a vote.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:45 PM
So if mobile does pay the fees that changes this quite a lot, may I suggest we see how the mobile wg get on with onboarding fees and trying to get that decided asap, it changes the landscape quite a bit
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So if mobile does pay the fees that changes this quite a lot, may I suggest we see how the mobile wg get on with onboarding fees and trying to get that decided asap, it changes the landscape quite a bit
I do hate to say this, but maybe you should vote for or against HIP-80 then and propose another HIP. It’s been discussed since October that it might be a good idea if MOBILE paid the onboarding fees specified in HIP-53.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
So if mobile does pay the fees that changes this quite a lot, may I suggest we see how the mobile wg get on with onboarding fees and trying to get that decided asap, it changes the landscape quite a bit
right in my initial calculations I conclude that either hip 80 needs to be passed or the onboarding fees need payed, there is the additional negative that mobile data will be a 0 as well for the foreseeable future at least until the E-sims are relaunched or helium mobile launches
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I do hate to say this, but maybe you should vote for or against HIP-80 then and propose another HIP. It’s been discussed since October that it might be a good idea if MOBILE paid the onboarding fees specified in HIP-53.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:47 PM
I'm just trying to find middle ground
17:47
Cause circles aren't helping
Avatar
Tell me about it. I’ve been doing that for weeks.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:47 PM
Maybe that's what we need to do
17:48
A temp check 51 Vs 80
👍 1
Avatar
The temp check is on 80. 51 is already in force.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
A temp check 51 Vs 80
well by voting no on 80 you are in effect voting for 51 (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:48 PM
Yep
17:49
Too many things going on, of course it does lol
17:50
I think putting 80 up if mobile has decided/deciding soon about onboarding fees seems a bit wrong tho
17:50
A hip to fix no onboarding when there will be onboarding?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I think putting 80 up if mobile has decided/deciding soon about onboarding fees seems a bit wrong tho
wel talked about it at first but I can only speak for myself and say I am willing to pay given no other options...
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
A hip to fix no onboarding when there will be onboarding?
HIP-80 has multiple motivations, not just the missing onboarding fees. And I do think the clock has run out on the idea of paying the fees.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, I see multiple disadvantages in HIP-51 as it stands. My view on that is explained in the Motivation section of HIP-80. Initially, I tried to find a solution to the missing MOBILE onboarding fees. That resulted in HIP-78. Then, among other things, my suggestion that Foundation facilitate somebody paying the missing fees didn’t work out because nobody wanted to pay. So now I’ve been working on this subject for several weeks, talking to various people, trying to understand nuances of the implementation, along with my coauthors, who provided valuable insights of their own. I welcome suggestions for improvements to HIP-80, with an explanation of how and what they improve, and we will consider them. If they convince us, we will implement them. We’ve had several so far. Some people don’t like HIP-80, and would rather keep HIP-51, and propose other HIPs to fix what they see as its disadvantages. That’s fine, good luck with that. Better ideas may yet come to light. I don’t have any. What we do have to offer is HIP-80. If there are no suggestions how HIP-80 should be improved, I think we might as well put HIP-80 to a vote.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:52 PM
That’s not how it works though. You can’t say we can’t come to a consensus so let’s just vote. There needs to be some rough consensus then a vote.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
HIP-80 has multiple motivations, not just the missing onboarding fees. And I do think the clock has run out on the idea of paying the fees.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 5:52 PM
I'd really like to see jmf's numbers to see how much of an issue it is
👆 1
17:53
But I get your stance at this point 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:53 PM
One of the issues with deciding a price for onboarding in mobile WG was HIP-80 might remove any incentive to burn more than is necessary
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
One of the issues with deciding a price for onboarding in mobile WG was HIP-80 might remove any incentive to burn more than is necessary
Well, it would be good to get clarity on whether people like the idea then, right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:54 PM
It seems like people don’t. It does too much and uses plugs to get to a desired result because of the perceived time constraints (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It seems like people don’t. It does too much and uses plugs to get to a desired result because of the perceived time constraints (edited)
I certainly can see that you like to talk about how you don’t like ideas. Aside from that, I don’t share your point of view.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 5:56 PM
I don’t like bad ideas. I haven’t made a peep in the HIP-77 channel
17:56
Think I was pretty quiet in the HIP 74 channel
17:57
No complaints with HIP-12
17:57
Loved HIP-24
17:57
I’ve also proposed many alternatives
17:58
I also have a PR submitted because discussion moved out of the channel and into the DMs
17:59
The argument continues to be that we must be quick to pass this HIP before the migration. There hasn’t been a convincing argument as to why
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I also have a PR submitted because discussion moved out of the channel and into the DMs
You mean PR #518? I don’t that’s relevant to HIP-80, is it?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:00 PM
I think taking a step back and reassessing the HIP without the pressure of a merge will be a very good exercise. My position on my A score HIP has changed the more I think about and am working on a more nuanced approach.
Avatar
@valerie From what I can tell we can keep discussing things here until the cows come home, but I haven’t seen any new suggestions for changes to HIP-80 for a while since the last edits. Some people are against HIP-80 and would prefer to keep HIP-51, and then change specific parameters, and there are separate PRs for that. But in my view the way to do that would be for them to just vote against HIP-80 and take it from there. So I suggest we proceed to a temperature check.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The temp check is on 80. 51 is already in force.
I had to step away from the nonsense. I support HIP80. What’s the link for the temp check? (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:02 PM
What is your goal here?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I had to step away from the nonsense. I support HIP80. What’s the link for the temp check? (edited)
Haha, there we go. I think we should ask Valerie to do this through whatever channels are proper. Last time it was just a straw poll in the channel.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What is your goal here?
Reasonable question. What is your goal?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:03 PM
Stop trying to scheme while people are sleeping
18:03
To have good HIPs pass
18:03
Your HIP isn’t good
🤣 1
18:03
I’m sorry
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Stop trying to scheme while people are sleeping
It’s 3 AM here, I’m going to sleep now. What time is it for you.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:03 PM
You’re a great community member but it’s not a good HIP
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It’s 3 AM here, I’m going to sleep now. What time is it for you.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:04 PM
Groot is asleep and you schedule governance calls at 7 am in the US (edited)
Avatar
This is the kinda nonsense that I am talking about. Really. Not a good look.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
To have good HIPs pass
Hahahahaha. My goal is to have good HIPs pass. Our opinions appear to differ sometimes what is a good idea and what isn’t. In the end, that’s why we use the democratic process.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
This is the kinda nonsense that I am talking about. Really. Not a good look.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:04 PM
Should I lie and say the HIP is good?
18:05
The HIP creates more problems than it solves
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Groot is asleep and you schedule governance calls at 7 am in the US (edited)
I have never schedulad a governance call. I accepted a propsal for a time for that one Community Call. Is that relevant?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Should I lie and say the HIP is good?
Of course not! You are entitled to your incorrect opinion. 😉
👍 1
😄 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:05 PM
You’re going so deep down the rabbit hole of trying to make it work without an A score and for what?
18:06
You started with incorrect assumptions of what can and cannot be done from a technical perspective and haven’t readjusted your position as new information comes in
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You’re going so deep down the rabbit hole of trying to make it work without an A score and for what?
I believe the mathematically simpler score is better, because it removes unnecessary edge cases and counterproductive incentives. But I’ve said that before. Now until either of us proves anything mathematically, which is quite difficult considering the many variables we're dealing with, we can only use our best judgement.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:07 PM
Using plugs that need to change isn’t simpler. It adds levels of complexity to adjust those plugs (edited)
Avatar
I propose that the magic numbers 40 and 7 never change. Maybe you weren’t listening. The 40 will also go away after 4 years anyway. We leave the 7, which is a magic number in the same way that “one dollar” is a magic number, or “one month”.
18:09
Or “1461 epochs”.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:09 PM
That 1 as a magic number myth was busted yesterday
18:09
You haven’t solved the issue of dead subDAOs
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That 1 as a magic number myth was busted yesterday
I think I adequately explained my thought processes.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:10 PM
You can’t just rewrite history and when you are proven wrong by Tushar just call for a rush vote
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You haven’t solved the issue of dead subDAOs
Sure I have. Once we’re in business, burning $10M/month (which is the goal, right?), a dead subDAO gets about 1.2% of the emissions. Is that too much? Well, are we willing to risk anything to bring on a subDAO? That carries many risks. I think 1.2% of emissions is the least of them. And leaving that aside, if a subDAO is permanently useless, or damaging, we can just vote it out.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:12 PM
So again, I ask, what is your motivation to push this through so quickly?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You haven’t solved the issue of dead subDAOs
This was one of my concerns as well, but some of the other factors come into play here. If any goes to 0 the full calc goes to 0. I wouldn’t argue against the 7 having a timeline per subdao as well.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
This was one of my concerns as well, but some of the other factors come into play here. If any goes to 0 the full calc goes to 0. I wouldn’t argue against the 7 having a timeline per subdao as well.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:13 PM
Nothing can go to 0 though
18:14
Arguing for a timeline is fine, it’s certainly not ready for a vote
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Nothing can go to 0 though
How so?
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
How so?
'max(1, else)' (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
How so?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:15 PM
There’s a max function that doesn’t allow any factor to fall below 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
'max(1, else)' (edited)
Ah duh
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
So again, I ask, what is your motivation to push this through so quickly?
I’m actually not setting the schedule. Foundation asked me to propose a solution to the missing onboarding fees, prior to transition if possible. I think some people were nonplussed that I decided to scrap HIP-78 and start HIP-80, but I’m the boss of me and decide what I think is the best approach. Then others came on (like JMF here) quite late in the process, and here we are. Foundation still would prefer to get everything implemented before transition. Makes sense to me, though I don’t write the code.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
'max(1, else)' (edited)
Just lose the max 1
18:16
It wasn’t in my original versions dating back to HIP37
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:18 PM
So you were tasked with finding a solution to one thing so your solution was to both require onboards AND completely change the dao utility score calc at the last minute?
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Just lose the max 1
The 1 is a 7 now. 😉
18:18
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:19 PM
A single veHNT delegated towards a dead subDAO negates that
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The 1 is a 7 now. 😉
For one of the two
18:20
I mean the number would be so small. I’d just lose the max function and allow the 7 to shift to 0 at X years
18:21
But I fundamentally agree that dead protocols should die
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
I mean the number would be so small. I’d just lose the max function and allow the 7 to shift to 0 at X years
In principle there’s nothing wrong with that. However, Max was arguing earlier that we need to provide an on-ramp to new subDAOs. The 7 does that, too. Anyway, it’s past 3 AM, and I really need to get to bed.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:21 PM
So we should give all subDAOs a 7 because gateholder wanted to get 12.5% of the rewards going to mobile based on a nonsense calc expecting data across the country that Boris said was impossible in todays mobile call
18:22
Like you are basing your choices on the opinions of a guy who objectively is wrong about almost everything related to helium mobile
Avatar
I tend to agree but the flip side is protecting Lora as well with the 40
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:23 PM
But LoRa is protected on the basis of the HNT it’s burned in the past
18:23
We want to incentivize that burn in the future
Avatar
You’re saying in the old version or this one?
18:23
Because this one is epoch by epoch.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:23 PM
Removing the A score removes that incentive
18:23
The $50 M in burn for onboarding
Avatar
I don’t love having a burn incentive just to burn tbh.
18:24
It’s an odd incentive
18:24
The original original equation just looked at DC burn per epoch
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:24 PM
It’s a security feature and a way for Helium DAO to extract value from subDAOs while they are being incubated
18:25
Panther X stopped churning keys when it took longer to earn $50 than it took for them to be placed on the deny list for example
Avatar
And I think subDAOs should have the option of keeping it as a security feature and a minimum on it helps secure helium DAO.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:26 PM
We should reward subDAOs for being more secure since historically gamers dump tokens hurting the ecosystem as a whole
18:26
It’s also a huge revenue stream for helium DAO
Avatar
The most bare bones version of all of this is letting SubDAOs compete on pure DC burn. Everything else is some form of protection for new or existing subDAOs
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:27 PM
Yes, but onboard DC burn is still DC burn
Avatar
Yea but it’s not the revenue stream we should really be incentivizing imo.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:27 PM
I don’t think we (Helium DAO) care
Avatar
It’s not the fundamental reason for this existing
18:28
A vote would tell us pretty quick on that one
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:28 PM
The onboard burn helped fuel the flywheel that got us to 1 million hotspots
Avatar
The bull market didn’t hurt. $50 burn in what was a $12 bn market cap isn’t exactly massive.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:29 PM
You can extract away the bull market by looking at HNT vs bitcoin though
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
The most bare bones version of all of this is letting SubDAOs compete on pure DC burn. Everything else is some form of protection for new or existing subDAOs
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:30 PM
That is a terrible idea. Some DAOs are just naturally better at passing data.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:30 PM
It created a buy pressure since bobcat and other HIP-19 vendors needed HNT to sell hotspots
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
That is a terrible idea. Some DAOs are just naturally better at passing data.
Which is the fundamental goal of what we’re doing
18:31
I was part of the same team that added the other protections though so it’s not like I don’t see the benefits
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Which is the fundamental goal of what we’re doing
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:31 PM
Sure, if you want to strangle IOT in the crib.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:31 PM
I don’t think it’s a coincidence the price went up after HIP-19. Any helium Inc hotspots could burn HST earned HNT
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Sure, if you want to strangle IOT in the crib.
Exactly why we added protections for IOT in this and the prior version
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Exactly why we added protections for IOT in this and the prior version
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:31 PM
How is removing A a protection?
Avatar
It was replaced with the 40 vs 7 minimum in the simplified version. This all came out of the technical difficulties of implementing A as it stood. As an author of “A” I wasn’t against it.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:33 PM
I just don’t see how adding arbitrary numbers that have changed multiple times over the past week is better
👆 1
Avatar
But I see why it’s a problematic calc to do repeatedly on blockchain
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:33 PM
We can have a historical burn based A score that is easier and allows for dynamic burn rates within a subDAO
Avatar
Hey I’m all for seeing a calc that’s feasible on chain frequently that’s a good alternative
18:34
I’ve now authored like 4 versions of this calc lol
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
It was replaced with the 40 vs 7 minimum in the simplified version. This all came out of the technical difficulties of implementing A as it stood. As an author of “A” I wasn’t against it.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:34 PM
Taking away A kills IOT. It's the only factor it has going for it right now.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:34 PM
It’s just sum of onboard burn over time that decays over time
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s just sum of onboard burn over time that decays over time
Apparently that’s more complex than it sounds. I didn’t realize that either until it was brought to my attentions
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:35 PM
Allows for a $10 burn for a $99 WiFi gateway and a $200 burn for a huge outdoor radio
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Taking away A kills IOT. It's the only factor it has going for it right now.
But a Floor of 40 doesn’t protect it??? “What you talking about Willis?” - Gary Coleman voice 🙂
😄 1
Avatar
Yea that is why the 40 is there
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Apparently that’s more complex than it sounds. I didn’t realize that either until it was brought to my attentions
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:36 PM
It is if you want to tie it to active hotspots. If you remove the active piece that the subDAO self reports it’s much easier
18:36
Then add a decay based on burn date to solve the dead subDAO problem
Avatar
I really don’t love it including non active personally but that is something else that was proposed
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
But a Floor of 40 doesn’t protect it??? “What you talking about Willis?” - Gary Coleman voice 🙂
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:36 PM
Not sure by what you mean by "floor". Is that just a hard coded replacement for A?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:37 PM
Proposed where though? Why are these discussions happening in secret?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Not sure by what you mean by "floor". Is that just a hard coded replacement for A?
Just says the minimum DC burn for Lora is set relatively high in the calc
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Proposed where though? Why are these discussions happening in secret?
I mean pre HIP going public
18:38
That’s how all HIPs are formulated to be fair. I was brought in for my opinion as were some others who were involved with 51
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Just says the minimum DC burn for Lora is set relatively high in the calc
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:38 PM
A is not the burn. It's the # of active hotpots x the onboarding fee (edited)
Avatar
I know but the end result in score is similar
18:39
Gives Lora a pretty massive head start
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:39 PM
Yea but it makes it difficult to have a dynamic onboard fee and keep track of online.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Not sure by what you mean by "floor". Is that just a hard coded replacement for A?
It basically gives IoT a huge advantage in the Data Credit burn calculation so mobile’s subDAO score doesn’t strip IoT of everything. It’s the motive behind the HIP
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Gives Lora a pretty massive head start
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:39 PM
Today it does. If another network comes in and onboard 2 million hotspots why shouldn’t it get something for doing that?
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Gives Lora a pretty massive head start
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:39 PM
IOT doesn't need it. It already has one. Now you're trying to screw with it.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:40 PM
Like let’s have a level playing field for new subDAOs to overtake LoRa if it builds out a comparable sized network
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
It basically gives IoT a huge advantage in the Data Credit burn calculation so mobile’s subDAO score doesn’t strip IoT of everything. It’s the motive behind the HIP
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:41 PM
Is it? Sure sounds like it's "Mobile is getting screwed. Let's change the math to make it 'fair'."
Avatar
I pity whichever 3rd Network tries to join us unless they identically match all values of both existing Networks
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:42 PM
I mean yea, this HIP makes it a 2 network project
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Is it? Sure sounds like it's "Mobile is getting screwed. Let's change the math to make it 'fair'."
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:42 PM
"Due to this implementation oversight, the DAO Utility Score of MOBILE as defined by HIP-51 is slated to launch far below its intended value, which would impair the incentive for participants to deploy new MOBILE Hotspots for Helium 5G. The buildout of Helium 5G is essential for the upcoming launch of Helium Mobile and therefore the growth of the Helium DAO as a whole."
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Like let’s have a level playing field for new subDAOs to overtake LoRa if it builds out a comparable sized network
Number of onboarded units shouldn’t really be a major factor. Sum of activation fees is a little better because it protects from absolute trash networks with 0 barriers to entry (see NODLE).
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:43 PM
The barrier to entry is the DC burn
Avatar
My first suggestion was just splitting the onboarding fees for FFi units between the two subDAOs.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Not sure by what you mean by "floor". Is that just a hard coded replacement for A?
18:44
Definitely protects IoT.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Click to see attachment 🖼️
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:44 PM
It's still talking about D, not A
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
It's still talking about D, not A
That has already been addressed. Back scroll. Look for Ferebee’s comparison tables. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
That has already been addressed. Back scroll. Look for Ferebee’s comparison tables. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:45 PM
I've been reading for hours. Didn't see it addressed. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Number of onboarded units shouldn’t really be a major factor. Sum of activation fees is a little better because it protects from absolute trash networks with 0 barriers to entry (see NODLE).
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:45 PM
It should be about 10% of the capex is the onboard price. Then we have a proxy for network size and network investment to determine if we can expect future DC burn
👍 1
18:46
Capex should roughly translate to future revenue potential
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
I've been reading for hours. Didn't see it addressed. (edited)
Yeah. The banter is like political grandstanding. Lol. I’ll see if I can locate it.
❤️ 1
Avatar
I don’t think we can base it on cost of device which is an off chain metric and varies. Also, we aren’t here to spend money on capex for the sake of spending money.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Yeah. The banter is like political grandstanding. Lol. I’ll see if I can locate it.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:47 PM
Thanks 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
I don’t think we can base it on cost of device which is an off chain metric and varies. Also, we aren’t here to spend money on capex for the sake of spending money.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:47 PM
The subDAOs choose their onboard fee based in device type which then makes it an on chain metric
18:48
A $7,000 VPP battery with more earning potential than a single LoRa hotspot shouldn’t count the same
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Thanks 🙂
It’s a lot of backscroll. Lol.
😅 1
Avatar
Yea but in theory you could have a cheap device that provides awesome dc burn via data transfer. It’s just an all around weird stat to base value of a subDAO on.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:49 PM
You could, it’s not a perfect metric but it’s better than just removing it
18:49
You would expect to earn more than spend and burn or else you wouldn’t do it
18:50
That cheap device makes up for it the with DC burn. We’re trying to solve for the value of devices in the pre-revenue times
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
I've been reading for hours. Didn't see it addressed. (edited)
❤️ 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:51 PM
If we don’t value onboard burn, why even have it?
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:52 PM
Hmm.. I did see this. But it's still talking about the burn. Nothing about A. I feel like I'm missing something critical here. 😅
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:53 PM
We’re taking a philosophical stand against a $50M revenue generator for a project that has $50M of revenue ever. The data transfer numbers after 4 years are a rounding error. (edited)
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Hmm.. I did see this. But it's still talking about the burn. Nothing about A. I feel like I'm missing something critical here. 😅
That’s in the logic of the hip and understanding what a 4th root is.
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:56 PM
I’m old enough to remember when @rawrmaan said that Pollen sucked because they didn’t burn any PCN to onboard radios.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Hmm.. I did see this. But it's still talking about the burn. Nothing about A. I feel like I'm missing something critical here. 😅
People are having difficulty in understanding that the originally presented subDAO Utility formula can cause the weight to shift to mobile and squash IoT. This HIP seeks to give IoT a fighting chance. Max says no, let Mobile squash ‘em (my words not his directly, but implicitly yes. Back scroll evidences this).
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If we don’t value onboard burn, why even have it?
Security as you said.
18:58
Yea there is a fundamental flaw in the original calc with a linnear weighed VeHNT calc.
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 6:58 PM
So $5 provides that security? Single number across all subDAOs?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
That’s in the logic of the hip and understanding what a 4th root is.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 6:58 PM
Ok, based on this, if is the V is the issue, then take the 4th root of that too. Why take away A? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Ok, based on this, if is the V is the issue, then take the 4th root of that too. Why take away A? (edited)
Solves two problems at once. Simpler, better, smarter.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
People are having difficulty in understanding that the originally presented subDAO Utility formula can cause the weight to shift to mobile and squash IoT. This HIP seeks to give IoT a fighting chance. Max says no, let Mobile squash ‘em (my words not his directly, but implicitly yes. Back scroll evidences this).
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 6:59 PM
That's not fair to say, the point is there are views hip51 does a better job than 80, not that anyone's suggesting to let mobile crush iot (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
That's not fair to say, the point is there are views hip51 does a better job than 80, not that anyone's suggesting to let mobile crush iot (edited)
Sigh. I should backscroll???
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Solves two problems at once. Simpler, better, smarter.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 7:00 PM
I'm not sure it is. The fees and number of hotspots are the only advantage IOT has to Mobile (or any other high data subdao) just coming in and taking IOT's lunch money. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Sigh. I should backscroll???
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 7:02 PM
Yeah there are 2 camps, 51 with some slight changes , really only detectable when staking happens if their needed or not, and one camp saying we've waited for mobile to decide onboarding fees too long and this is a proposed solution + fixes to stop what may happen (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Yeah there are 2 camps, 51 with some slight changes , really only detectable when staking happens if their needed or not, and one camp saying we've waited for mobile to decide onboarding fees too long and this is a proposed solution + fixes to stop what may happen (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 7:03 PM
This would be like if the EU created a requirement to pave roads to get funding and then Maldova twiddled their thumbs for 6 months and the EU said fuck it, no more paved roads
Avatar
What about those of us in the middle that think something should be done to fix the mobile onboarding fees issue but also thinks the arbitrary floor to protect IoT is necessary at this point?
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
What about those of us in the middle that think something should be done to fix the mobile onboarding fees issue but also thinks the arbitrary floor to protect IoT is necessary at this point?
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 7:05 PM
The A score is that protection. If you just don’t remove it, you don’t need an arbitrary protection
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The A score is that protection. If you just don’t remove it, you don’t need an arbitrary protection
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 7:06 PM
Yes, but also V is a problem, right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 7:07 PM
75:1 was that perfect ratio a week ago and this thing was allegedly ready to go to vote. Today 40:7 is the perfect ratio.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
I'm not sure it is. The fees and number of hotspots are the only advantage IOT has to Mobile (or any other high data subdao) just coming in and taking IOT's lunch money. (edited)
What’s the 4th root 400,000 active hotspots?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 7:07 PM
66ish
Avatar
Honestly VeHNT with a square goes a long way if the rest of the calc is easy to handle on chain and we split the FFi hotspot fees. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
75:1 was that perfect ratio a week ago and this thing was allegedly ready to go to vote. Today 40:7 is the perfect ratio.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 7:08 PM
To be clear, I have a rather expensive bottle of whiskey on the line that 51 is crap. 😉
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
What’s the 4th root 400,000 active hotspots?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 7:08 PM
400k * the onboarding fees... (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 7:08 PM
Are we splitting the FFi hotspots that have radios or just splitting the FFi hotspots in total
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 7:09 PM
66 > 40
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
66ish
Try asking google and respond again please
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Honestly VeHNT with a square goes a long way if the rest of the calc is easy to handle on chain and we split the FFi hotspot fees. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 7:09 PM
Why would the Lora fees be split?
19:10
(gotta go pick up dinner. 👋 )
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Try asking google and respond again please
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 7:11 PM
63.24555 my number was closer in percentage terms than your approximation of the number of hotspots online btw. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
63.24555 my number was closer in percentage terms than your approximation of the number of hotspots online btw. (edited)
Sigh. I’ve got to get some sleep. Early morning tomorrow.
👋 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Why would the Lora fees be split?
There was a fuckup and Mobile wasn’t designated any of the fees for FFi units when it was supposed to.
🤨 1
19:31
Lol ask the team about that one. Not my domain
Avatar
There’s been a lot of discussion around potential solutions and all their pros and cons, but maybe it’s worth taking a step back and just try to come to a consensus on what problems we’re currently looking to solve? I’m seeing something like this but am obviously open to suggestions. 1) Mobile’s current lack of an onboarding fee, and how this will sharply limit its HNT treasury at the start under the HIP51 equation. 2) The need to protect IOT in some fashion for the short to mid term due to its potentially slow ramp and all the dc it’s already burned. 3) Making sure zombie subdaos don’t earn HNT after they’ve been abandoned.
19:34
Are there any other problems that we’re looking to address?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Yes, but also V is a problem, right?
This has been the crux of my concern, that because if a significant amount of stakeres follow the rewards % it become a self funding cycle especially at the lower edges
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
There’s been a lot of discussion around potential solutions and all their pros and cons, but maybe it’s worth taking a step back and just try to come to a consensus on what problems we’re currently looking to solve? I’m seeing something like this but am obviously open to suggestions. 1) Mobile’s current lack of an onboarding fee, and how this will sharply limit its HNT treasury at the start under the HIP51 equation. 2) The need to protect IOT in some fashion for the short to mid term due to its potentially slow ramp and all the dc it’s already burned. 3) Making sure zombie subdaos don’t earn HNT after they’ve been abandoned.
Think you nailed it.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
This has been the crux of my concern, that because if a significant amount of stakeres follow the rewards % it become a self funding cycle especially at the lower edges
That was the flaw we saw that had us add a square root.
19:54
Gotta hit the sack. Let me know if anyone proposes a solid alternative
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
There’s been a lot of discussion around potential solutions and all their pros and cons, but maybe it’s worth taking a step back and just try to come to a consensus on what problems we’re currently looking to solve? I’m seeing something like this but am obviously open to suggestions. 1) Mobile’s current lack of an onboarding fee, and how this will sharply limit its HNT treasury at the start under the HIP51 equation. 2) The need to protect IOT in some fashion for the short to mid term due to its potentially slow ramp and all the dc it’s already burned. 3) Making sure zombie subdaos don’t earn HNT after they’ve been abandoned.
Yes this is my point that both IOT and MOBILE need gaurd rails for each other but also to prevent the free surface effect of veHNT to one sub DAO or the other. Hip 80 I believe is the best way but we are far from consensus I just don't get why we want on boarding fees so high it in my mind is just arbitrary and every dollar spent on it is one less not spent on building the networks
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
There was a fuckup and Mobile wasn’t designated any of the fees for FFi units when it was supposed to.
mobile wasn't designated fees or no fees were collected? $40 cover lora fee, did they pay over $40?
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Think you nailed it.
Thanks, although I’d be curious if anyone else has additional “problems” they think deserve to be added to the list.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Thanks, although I’d be curious if anyone else has additional “problems” they think deserve to be added to the list.
God we don't need any more problems 😂
😅 2
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Thanks, although I’d be curious if anyone else has additional “problems” they think deserve to be added to the list.
Valerie a while back had a list it might be way back therehttps://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093379604510691330 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
There was a fuckup and Mobile wasn’t designated any of the fees for FFi units when it was supposed to.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 8:16 PM
Why would mobile get those fees? Those were lora devices. 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Why would mobile get those fees? Those were lora devices. 🤷‍♂️
Ya I did maked this argument that maybe the gateways could choose but I was told it was burned for lora ... (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Ya I did maked this argument that maybe the gateways could choose but I was told it was burned for lora ... (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 8:20 PM
Possible dumb question: why wasn't there an onboarding fee for the radios?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Possible dumb question: why wasn't there an onboarding fee for the radios?
In hip 51 it was degnated to be the gateway at least that's how people have interpreted it (edited)
😬 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Possible dumb question: why wasn't there an onboarding fee for the radios?
But as I have thought about it more it just an arbitrary way of deterring bad acting subDAO's
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 8:27 PM
20:27
😄
20:32
Again though, if V is the problem, just addresses that. 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Valerie a while back had a list it might be way back therehttps://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093379604510691330 (edited)
I hadn’t realized it, but that’s a pretty similar list. Thanks. If we do at least have a general consensus on what our problems are, then I think the next question is do we have any sort of agreement on which (if any) of these problems need to be solved prior to migration? If so, let’s focus on just those.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I hadn’t realized it, but that’s a pretty similar list. Thanks. If we do at least have a general consensus on what our problems are, then I think the next question is do we have any sort of agreement on which (if any) of these problems need to be solved prior to migration? If so, let’s focus on just those.
My simple take is hip 51 as it sits isn't good and does need fixed or replaced before migration because changing it after will be 10x harder after people start setting expectations (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
My simple take is hip 51 as it sits isn't good and does need fixed or replaced before migration because changing it after will be 10x harder after people start setting expectations (edited)
Genuine question, is there a technical aspect that makes it harder to fix after migration, or just a psychological aspect?
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Genuine question, is there a technical aspect that makes it harder to fix after migration, or just a psychological aspect?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 8:53 PM
Both
20:53
But not impossible
20:54
Better right than right now...
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Genuine question, is there a technical aspect that makes it harder to fix after migration, or just a psychological aspect?
it is very hard to change the dao utility score after the migration, and definitely not a preference. but not impossible. one option could be, if there is no consensus about how to proceed: meet the minimum requirements to maintain hip 51 (which it looks like is likely a mobile onboarding fee). OR, we could pause governance smart contracts until this is resolved. Launch the migration with 8/10 smart contracts live. and work on a revised dao utility score for a longer period of time. Just my 2cents. There is likely another option as well: revise hip 80 quickly so that we have consensus to move forward with a revised dao utility score another option: something we havent heard yet 🙂
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Better right than right now...
from what i can tell there is this sentiment more than a clear solution - better right than right now
Avatar
Avatar
valerie
from what i can tell there is this sentiment more than a clear solution - better right than right now
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 9:01 PM
Understandable considering we're here due to 51 being rushed. 🙂
Avatar
touche
🙂 1
Avatar
Avatar
valerie
from what i can tell there is this sentiment more than a clear solution - better right than right now
This is the sense I’m getting too. Which makes me think, if someone wants to propose a very simple change that seems to have broad support, then by all means throw it out here and propose it. If that does exist, then we should still be able to get it up for a vote in time for 4/18. But on the other hand, it’s pretty clear there’s not enough time right now to get any sort of a complex or nuanced change vetted for the migration, so let’s just put those sorts of changes on hold til after 4/18. I know it’s not ideal for Mobile if everything stays as is with 51, but they’re literally earning nothing right now, so just getting through the migration and having their treasury go live is important.
👍 1
Avatar
I have yet to hear actual evidence that no one wants to pay their onboarding fee for their 5G gateway. In fact, I have yet to hear that the Foundation or Nova has said "no". Every claim has been "they won't do it if we ask" or "I don't think they should pay". Given HIP51, the Mobile subDAO will not be earning any HNT to its treasury because of zero onboarding fees being paid. So "we" better pay real soon or else $mobile becomes essentially valueless. I have heard several "fleet operators" say they will pay their fees as soon as there is a mechanism to do so. In fact, one operator has already requested from the Foundation for a wallet to pay. No response given yet. So something needs to be solved soon or else zero HNT starting April 19th. Simply a fact. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I have yet to hear actual evidence that no one wants to pay their onboarding fee for their 5G gateway. In fact, I have yet to hear that the Foundation or Nova has said "no". Every claim has been "they won't do it if we ask" or "I don't think they should pay". Given HIP51, the Mobile subDAO will not be earning any HNT to its treasury because of zero onboarding fees being paid. So "we" better pay real soon or else $mobile becomes essentially valueless. I have heard several "fleet operators" say they will pay their fees as soon as there is a mechanism to do so. In fact, one operator has already requested from the Foundation for a wallet to pay. No response given yet. So something needs to be solved soon or else zero HNT starting April 19th. Simply a fact. (edited)
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 9:31 PM
It's more the mobile wg were tasked to set that onboarding and they couldn't decide what was being onboarded or for how much (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
It's more the mobile wg were tasked to set that onboarding and they couldn't decide what was being onboarded or for how much (edited)
Most of the working group has agreed to pay their fee. So that isn't really the source of the disagreement.
21:32
The only answer I have seen is $40.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 9:32 PM
It's the whole what are they onboarding radios or gateways
21:32
Then cap wants low fees Vs some wanting higher fees for outdoors etc
Avatar
We already concluded we can't move to radios before migration.
21:33
You are correct, we haven't figured out a price per radio (indoor or outdoor). That discussion has been tabled until after migration.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 9:34 PM
Sounds like it might be an idea to push that and get it written up imo
Avatar
We don't have to write it up. HIP51 already says $40 for the gateway.
👍 1
21:34
We need a mechanism to pay. The new dashboard looks to me the easiest way to address payment.
21:35
Add a button. Pay. Mark some field in the blockchain as "paid". Add to the "total fees paid" field. 🙂
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 9:36 PM
It'll be nft's or something won't it most likely, a purchase method to buy one
Avatar
Love it. If that can be done pre-migration, let's get it done.
21:37
If it has to wait until after migration, then I guess we have to deal with zero HNT to our treasury until after the NFTs can be purchased and put in our Backpack.
21:38
@Max - Just Max has been tasked with calling Nova and the Foundation to ask for them to subsidize the onboarding fee. Seems like tomorrow would be a good day to go ask so that they can think about it over the weekend and give us an answer on Monday. (edited)
👍 1
21:41
My $120 of HNT is ready and waiting to pay for my three gateways. I strongly propose that every gateway owes the $40 regardless of radio count (even zero radios). I owed $40 for my LoRaWAN hotspot regardless if I was planning to do a good install or not. (edited)
21:43
You don't think you should pay $40 the gateway portion of your hotspot/gateway because you aren't planning for any mobile radios, then sell it. Someone will buy it. (edited)
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/06/2023 9:44 PM
depends what's possible to count, I know you have the sas thing with mobile but iot hotspots are on chain, hopefully it doesn't come down to figures fed from sas as in something we can't verify
21:45
Which would make me think counting gatways makes more sense than radios
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Which would make me think counting gatways makes more sense than radios
for now, yes.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I have yet to hear actual evidence that no one wants to pay their onboarding fee for their 5G gateway. In fact, I have yet to hear that the Foundation or Nova has said "no". Every claim has been "they won't do it if we ask" or "I don't think they should pay". Given HIP51, the Mobile subDAO will not be earning any HNT to its treasury because of zero onboarding fees being paid. So "we" better pay real soon or else $mobile becomes essentially valueless. I have heard several "fleet operators" say they will pay their fees as soon as there is a mechanism to do so. In fact, one operator has already requested from the Foundation for a wallet to pay. No response given yet. So something needs to be solved soon or else zero HNT starting April 19th. Simply a fact. (edited)
Again: zero onboarding fees doesn't mean zero HNT, just significantly less. (edited)
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Again: zero onboarding fees doesn't mean zero HNT, just significantly less. (edited)
Good point. I will try not to say "zero HNT", though I think with a 1 our earn will be damn near zero.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Good point. I will try not to say "zero HNT", though I think with a 1 our earn will be damn near zero.
In all likelihood, there will be a significant amount of veHNT delegated to MOBILE. So maybe painfully low, but not close to zero for the subDAO in total. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
In all likelihood, there will be a significant amount of veHNT delegated to MOBILE. So maybe painfully low, but not close to zero for the subDAO in total. (edited)
Someone modeled that earlier. Even with substantial veHNT delegation, having a 1 means 1.96% of the HNT goes to the Mobile subDAO.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
My simple take is hip 51 as it sits isn't good and does need fixed or replaced before migration because changing it after will be 10x harder after people start setting expectations (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:53 PM
Based on what?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
It's more the mobile wg were tasked to set that onboarding and they couldn't decide what was being onboarded or for how much (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:54 PM
A lot of the sentiment was also “let’s see what happens with HIP-80 because it might not matter”
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 9:54 PM
Was i pinged? 👀
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:56 PM
There is another option
Avatar
jeebus Max...
21:57
Just call Nova and the Foundation tomorrow... 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:57 PM
We could just scrap the Dao utility score all together and Mobile can just be its own SPL
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 9:57 PM
ah no worries 🙂
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 9:57 PM
It’s not an option people want, but it is an option
Avatar
But has to use DCs to do anything since it would be a member protocol of the Helium ecosystem.
21:59
That doesn't seem to work Max. Too easy to drop out of the ecosystem.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Someone modeled that earlier. Even with substantial veHNT delegation, having a 1 means 1.96% of the HNT goes to the Mobile subDAO.
2,500,000HNT (monthly emissions) / 30 (days) * .68 (total percentage to subDAOs) * 0.0196 = 1110.7 HNT daily to MOBILE subDAO if that percentage is right. (edit: initial number was off by 10x) (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:01 PM
That’s what I’m suggesting
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
2,500,000HNT (monthly emissions) / 30 (days) * .68 (total percentage to subDAOs) * 0.0196 = 1110.7 HNT daily to MOBILE subDAO if that percentage is right. (edit: initial number was off by 10x) (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:03 PM
wait... how many 5G spots do we have right now? (edited)
22:03
3500?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
2,500,000HNT (monthly emissions) / 30 (days) * .68 (total percentage to subDAOs) * 0.0196 = 1110.7 HNT daily to MOBILE subDAO if that percentage is right. (edit: initial number was off by 10x) (edited)
That is not what the previous poster had as an answer in their model. They had 1,054 HNT to subDAO. I didn't check their math. And I am not checking yours. Either way, that is not enough to cover the 50 billion pre-mine.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:04 PM
Nothing will ever cover the 50 Billion pre-mine
Avatar
I thought we had ~4000 gateways and about 8,500 radios?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
That is not what the previous poster had as an answer in their model. They had 1,054 HNT to subDAO. I didn't check their math. And I am not checking yours. Either way, that is not enough to cover the 50 billion pre-mine.
rechecking mine... (just took your percentage, dk if it us correct)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
rechecking mine... (just took your percentage, dk if it us correct)
Neither do I. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
2,500,000HNT (monthly emissions) / 30 (days) * .68 (total percentage to subDAOs) * 0.0196 = 1110.7 HNT daily to MOBILE subDAO if that percentage is right. (edit: initial number was off by 10x) (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:06 PM
Something seems off... that would be 1.3hnt per radio per day on average. 👀
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:06 PM
If the goal of HIP-80 is to make everything more simple and delete scores for the Dao Utility score, why not just get rid of the whole thing?
22:06
Then IOT gets 100% of the HNT
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:06 PM
I said radio..
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Neither do I. 🙂
Yes, I was off by 10x, corrected now (edited)
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:07 PM
😉
Avatar
Sorry missed that
🤝 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Yes, I was off by 10x, corrected now (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:07 PM
ahh ok 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Yes, I was off by 10x, corrected now (edited)
Excellent. Then can we agree that 1,110 HNT a day is "nearly zero" compared to how much IoT would be getting? 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Excellent. Then can we agree that 1,110 HNT a day is "nearly zero" compared to how much IoT would be getting? 🙂 (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:09 PM
Not really. That's still 3x the average daily hotspot. 😉
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Not really. That's still 3x the average daily hotspot. 😉
Interesting. Well then, fuck it we ain't paying! (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Interesting. Well then, fuck it we ain't paying! (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:10 PM
(maybe x2? I'm not 100% sure on the current average for IOT)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Excellent. Then can we agree that 1,110 HNT a day is "nearly zero" compared to how much IoT would be getting? 🙂 (edited)
still prefer "painfully low" for the absolute HNT amount
🤝 3
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
still prefer "painfully low" for the absolute HNT amount
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:12 PM
Wouldn't stay that way for long once they start passing data and eat all the rewards.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Wouldn't stay that way for long once they start passing data and eat all the rewards.
We got years before that will happen! Apparently. Alleged...
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
We got years before that will happen! Apparently. Alleged...
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:12 PM
I mean mobile eating rewards, not IOT 😉
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
We got years before that will happen! Apparently. Alleged...
How could it not be
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
How could it not be
I thought he was referring to IoT as "they".
Avatar
Oh haha
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I thought he was referring to IoT as "they".
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:13 PM
Yeah, sorry, should have been clearer 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Wouldn't stay that way for long once they start passing data and eat all the rewards.
If all works well enough with Helium Mobile, probably yes
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
If all works well enough with Helium Mobile, probably yes
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:14 PM
So all in all, the "painfully low" isn't low enough to stop Mobile from killing IOT in the cradle.
🤷‍♂️ 1
Avatar
All this data is pushing through the Mobile radios...I get 50 cents a gig for it. Really I get 50 cents of $mobile. Which is based on the how much HNT was distributed to the Treasury for that day. Right?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:15 PM
But like why not just go separate ways if everyone is so mad about the split
22:16
Both networks feel like they don’t get enough HNT
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But like why not just go separate ways if everyone is so mad about the split
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:16 PM
Because Nova...
22:16
They insisted on stealing from IOT to pay for the new hotness
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:16 PM
What about Nova?
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:17 PM
And the BS about "rising DC helps everyone" doesn't do a damn thing if your subdoa isn't getting any hnt in the treasury.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
And the BS about "rising DC helps everyone" doesn't do a damn thing if your subdoa isn't getting any hnt in the treasury.
Are you sure that is a true sentence?
Avatar
Just because the kids are fighting doesn’t mean they don’t have the same parents. Splitting them up kills the family
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
And the BS about "rising DC helps everyone" doesn't do a damn thing if your subdoa isn't getting any hnt in the treasury.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:17 PM
Are we upset about IOT or Movile with that statement? It’s hard to tell.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Are you sure that is a true sentence?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:18 PM
Getting a 10x HNT value doesn't matter when you take a 20x hit in HNT rewards
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Are we upset about IOT or Movile with that statement? It’s hard to tell.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:18 PM
IOT getting screwed. 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:18 PM
Elon, you own HNT
22:18
You can also buy more
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Getting a 10x HNT value doesn't matter when you take a 20x hit in HNT rewards
That is why we want the D part of the equation to be the total of all onboarding and assert fees rather than just during the most recent epoch. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:19 PM
Why anyone would buy a radio or hotspot and not HNT right now is beyond me
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Elon, you own HNT
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:19 PM
The whole thing was set up for those with existing bags. It does nothing for newer folks. I'm not just thinking about myself here.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Why anyone would buy a radio or hotspot and not HNT right now is beyond me
Totally agree
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:19 PM
There won’t be new iot entrants
👆 1
Avatar
Do we know how many IoT hotspots are in people's hands but not onboarded?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:20 PM
There’s a million hotspots out there. The rewards are so diluted it’s ridiculous
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Why anyone would buy a radio or hotspot and not HNT right now is beyond me
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:20 PM
Then the incentives are clearly wrong.
Avatar
Only holders of Hnt benefit from all of this and frankly most iot miners didn’t mine a lot of Hnt.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There won’t be new iot entrants
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:20 PM
And that's a problem.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:20 PM
Well it’s all about how much you earn vs how much you can buy
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Do we know how many IoT hotspots are in people's hands but not onboarded?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:21 PM
We might be able to get a rough idea if we knew total unit sales. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There’s a million hotspots out there. The rewards are so diluted it’s ridiculous
That includes the 9 I have on my desk? I am sure it includes the 10 broken Nebras because I onboarded them. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:21 PM
I have like 50 in my closet
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I have like 50 in my closet
Brand new and not onboarded?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:22 PM
Yea, actually PPL probably has another 30 or 40 it hasn’t sold
Avatar
Hopefully we are outliers.
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:22 PM
I think about 8-10 new in box
Avatar
Not looking that way. My friend has 125 I think.
😮 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:22 PM
Na the hotspot RF guys told me they have like 100 in their garage
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Hopefully we are outliers.
The incentive just gets worse as well. I agree with you max the writing is on the wall
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:23 PM
Fizzy has some
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Do we know how many IoT hotspots are in people's hands but not onboarded?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:23 PM
What is the question you're trying to answer with those numbers?
Avatar
So IoT has 400k live, 600k dead or denied, and 25% more in operator's inventory. Wow. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
What is the question you're trying to answer with those numbers?
Don't need to make any new ones any time soon.
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:24 PM
Na it’s probably not that many
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:24 PM
Yeah, 25% sounds high
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Na it’s probably not that many
I have 46 live and 9 in inventory.
22:25
Ok, 15%?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:25 PM
I have another 70-80 onboarded but never deployed
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:25 PM
Maybe 10%?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I have another 70-80 onboarded but never deployed
That is part of the million.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:25 PM
Yea
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I have another 70-80 onboarded but never deployed
You need to get them to earn some time this month...don't want to miss out on that pre-mine drop.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
You need to get them to earn some time this month...don't want to miss out on that pre-mine drop.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:26 PM
My hex is about to get really crowded. lol
22:27
Well, maybe. I think my GF would kill me if I put anything more on the roof. 😅
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
You need to get them to earn some time this month...don't want to miss out on that pre-mine drop.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:30 PM
Not worth the $10 reassert
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Not worth the $10 reassert
That was my conclusion for the 9 on my desk.
22:32
Unless there was a large amount of time between April 20th and when they were entered into production. Then it might be worth it.
22:33
ok. Back to the point at hand. Who is saying they won't pay their $40 to onboard their 5G gateway/hotspot that they didn't pay before through no fault of their own. No interest is due for your late payment...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:35 PM
Should really just be radios
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
That was my conclusion for the 9 on my desk.
Just plug it in without reasserting. Hopefully they pass some data.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:36 PM
Then the mobile subDAO can kick the can down the road and say it’s not our fault, foundation didn’t enable radios
22:36
Then yell at hashcode for giving nova 15B mobile
😆 1
22:36
The key is to blame someone else
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
ok. Back to the point at hand. Who is saying they won't pay their $40 to onboard their 5G gateway/hotspot that they didn't pay before through no fault of their own. No interest is due for your late payment...
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:38 PM
Umm... I already paid the onboarding for my gateway...
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Umm... I already paid the onboarding for my gateway...
no you did not...
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:38 PM
As Max said, should be per radio
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
no you did not...
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:39 PM
Yes, I did.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
As Max said, should be per radio
Ideally but that can’t happen in time.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
no you did not...
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:39 PM
The gateway is a lora device, and I paid.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Ideally but that can’t happen in time.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:39 PM
Why?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Yes, I did.
No you didn't. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
No you didn't. 🙂
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:40 PM
JMF confirmed that we did
22:40
To IOT
Avatar
Something about device needing a secure identifier.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Something about device needing a secure identifier.
blah blah blah
22:41
the gateway can pay on behalf of the radio. The radio has a unique serial number. Solved. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
the gateway can pay on behalf of the radio. The radio has a unique serial number. Solved. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:42 PM
Yeah... if it's good enough for SAS/FCC... 🙂
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
No you didn't. 🙂
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:43 PM
Why do you keep saying we didn't pay an onboarding fee for out lora hotspot?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Why do you keep saying we didn't pay an onboarding fee for out lora hotspot?
That is not what I am saying. You didn't pay for your 5G gateway...We paid for half of our dual-capability hotspot.
22:44
There are two gateways/hotspots on your Bobcat500 or FreedomFi.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
That is not what I am saying. You didn't pay for your 5G gateway...We paid for half of our dual-capability hotspot.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:44 PM
So pay for the radios. I already paid to onboard the gateway.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
So pay for the radios. I already paid to onboard the gateway.
Not in disagreement with your finer point.
🤝 1
22:45
radios, yes! $10 a pop in my opinion. I don't care which model myself. Not going to argue against different price for more powerful radios though.
👍 2
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:45 PM
If we're paying rewards based on radios, paying fees should also be by radio. 🙂
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
If we're paying rewards based on radios, paying fees should also be by radio. 🙂
So you didn't smoke any weed tonight. You sound logical.
22:46
[not an actual accusation of you specifically. you are just the fun target for the comment.] (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
So you didn't smoke any weed tonight. You sound logical.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:46 PM
lol I know people assume by my looks, but I've never touched the stuff. 😄
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
[not an actual accusation of you specifically. you are just the fun target for the comment.] (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:46 PM
I get that a lot. lol 😉
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
lol I know people assume by my looks, but I've never touched the stuff. 😄
I did figure a weed smoking jazz drummer... (edited)
🤣 1
🥁 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I did figure a weed smoking jazz drummer... (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:47 PM
I drummed a little in jr high. Does that count? 😄
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Yeah... if it's good enough for SAS/FCC... 🙂
Makes sense to me. We’ve been saying that but keep getting told it wouldn’t work.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Makes sense to me. We’ve been saying that but keep getting told it wouldn’t work.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:48 PM
Yeah, not sure who's saying that. 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
A single issue HIP to elaborate on the definition of "device" should solve it.
🤘 1
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 10:52 PM
1. Charge "onboarding fee" per radio. (don't really care to bikeshed the actual $ amount. $5-$10?) Apply to A. 2. Fix V (4th root?) to prevent whale manipulation of subdoa treasury rewards. 3. Some sort of kill switch for dead subDAOs. Anything else? 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
I am writing a single issue HIP for #2. I am coming to the conclusion that someone was wrong when they thought that any transformation would solve the issue of stopping whale manipulation.
22:55
The issue isn't disparate amounts of staking. It is significant differences in delegation. And since that is simply a ratio, no transformation can mitigate a huge delta between the two totals [of veHNT delegated].
22:56
There is no solution to solve ElonTusk putting 100% of his delegation to a single subDAO. Other than having some minimum delegation to each subDAO or a max value.
22:59
Square rooting, or any rooting, or even a logarithmic transformation only attenuates how much he staked. Not how he delegated. And since the transformation to the distribution of staking affects every stake, the effect is super tiny on delegation.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Something about device needing a secure identifier.
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 10:59 PM
That’s not actually true though
Avatar
I mean I figured if pollen can do it why not right?
Avatar
I have been saying that too. If pollen figured it out, we can too.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:02 PM
everyone doing mobile agrees it should be by radio.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
I mean I figured if pollen can do it why not right?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:02 PM
Too soon. lol
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
everyone doing mobile agrees it should be by radio.
does seem that way
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:02 PM
but there's always pushback saying it can't be done 🤷‍♂️
🤷‍♂️ 1
Avatar
it can't be done as cryptographically secure as gateways etc are is the gist of it
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:03 PM
Avatar
Avatar
groot
it can't be done as cryptographically secure as gateways etc are is the gist of it
why can't the gateway pay for the radio?
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:04 PM
so maybe whatever hip that says devices must be cryptographically secure needs to change and just let the subdao decide
Avatar
Avatar
groot
it can't be done as cryptographically secure as gateways etc are is the gist of it
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:04 PM
Is that a problem in this case? If it's good enough to pay them rewards, surely it's good enough to take fees?
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Is that a problem in this case? If it's good enough to pay them rewards, surely it's good enough to take fees?
there you go again with the "logic"
Avatar
manufacturer serial no's are unique but they aren't private so there is nothing to "sign" with to prove things are actually done by that radio.
🤔 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:05 PM
but that still won't happen before migration so we can shelf that until later
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
there you go again with the "logic"
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:05 PM
Contrary to popular belief, it's actually my MO. 😉 lol
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
so maybe whatever hip that says devices must be cryptographically secure needs to change and just let the subdao decide
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:06 PM
Actually it doesn’t exist and the HIP-51 says the subDAO decides. Easiest HIP ever
Avatar
Avatar
groot
manufacturer serial no's are unique but they aren't private so there is nothing to "sign" with to prove things are actually done by that radio.
but the gateway knows that the radio is there. and we keep giving these untrustworthy radios rewards.
Avatar
So right now the onboardings are doing 2 things. 1) they prove this radio exist because of hip19 etc and 2) they provide a secret key that proves that some messages are actually coming from the radio and not some random other guy. Point 1) can be done by serial no or whatever, but point 2) is the hard one since radios don't have keys.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:07 PM
Two radios can’t be registered to the SAS with the same serial number. This was a hang up with pollen
Avatar
again, can't we trust the gateway to pay for the radios that are connected to it?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
but the gateway knows that the radio is there. and we keep giving these untrustworthy radios rewards.
If we trust the gateway, then yes, possible. But since the crypto chip is missing from the radio a gateway can pass off 7 radios as being 1 radio.
😮 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:07 PM
Nova runs the SaS
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So right now the onboardings are doing 2 things. 1) they prove this radio exist because of hip19 etc and 2) they provide a secret key that proves that some messages are actually coming from the radio and not some random other guy. Point 1) can be done by serial no or whatever, but point 2) is the hard one since radios don't have keys.
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:07 PM
so you're telling me, that even if I wanted to pay for my gateway $40, per hip51, I can't anyways?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:07 PM
And the oracles
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
so you're telling me, that even if I wanted to pay for my gateway $40, per hip51, I can't anyways?
that message was specifically about radio onboarding. Of course we can onboard a gateway to 2 subDAOs
👍 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:08 PM
Would someone just take my fucking money
😆 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:08 PM
Like the no crypto chip thingy is such a cop out answer
Avatar
Avatar
groot
it can't be done as cryptographically secure as gateways etc are is the gist of it
Exactly identifier vs crypto secure identity
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:09 PM
Let’s just give Sri a grant to make them all NFTs
😂 1
Avatar
It's actually valid, technically.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Yeah, not sure who's saying that. 🤷‍♂️
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If we trust the gateway, then yes, possible. But since the crypto chip is missing from the radio a gateway can pass off 7 radios as being 1 radio.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:09 PM
Doesn't the facts have to be reported to Sas/FCC though?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Let’s just give Sri a grant to make them all NFTs
Sri didn't have to trust gateways because there were none so there you had the possibility to verify things on the server end which was in their control.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:10 PM
There were gateways
23:10
They called them stems
🥀 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Doesn't the facts have to be reported to Sas/FCC though?
Yes but that only helps with the identity part. Say we move to radio speedtests instead of gateway speedtests in the future. There is no keypair on the radio to prove that the radio actually signed that speedtest result (dumb example, but I think it shows the gist).
👍 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:11 PM
Yea that’s right they didn’t even do speed tests
Avatar
It could've just as easily been one of the other 7 radios on that gateway that signed it.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It could've just as easily been one of the other 7 radios on that gateway that signed it.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:12 PM
Hmm... awkward
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:12 PM
But we don’t need the gateway for the crypto stuff
23:12
The SAS is pretty real time on being online
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:12 PM
I think different networks should decide what is a "device" and if it's secure enough
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:12 PM
The gateway knows which radios are connected to it
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Yes but that only helps with the identity part. Say we move to radio speedtests instead of gateway speedtests in the future. There is no keypair on the radio to prove that the radio actually signed that speedtest result (dumb example, but I think it shows the gist).
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:13 PM
What would it take to give the radios an identity? Hardware or software? (or both)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:13 PM
Then you just make the NFTs and put them in the wallets
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
What would it take to give the radios an identity? Hardware or software? (or both)
👍 1
Avatar
So without secure chip the possible scenario is possible: 1) have one very fast gateway in a data center 2) have 10 not so fast gateways 3) pass all of the speedtests of 1) and pretend it was one of 2)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:16 PM
secure against what, is another thing to consider, 5g and Lora are very different when it comes to gaming
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
What would it take to give the radios an identity? Hardware or software? (or both)
radios would need hardware, or software depending on what stuff runs on a radio (if it has some variant of secure boot available).
👍 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:16 PM
so they shouldnt be required to have the same secure chip to prove it's secure (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
secure against what, is another thing to consider, 5g and Lora are very different when it comes to gaming
I don't buy the 'but it is illegal by law' part when at the same time we have someone scamming Binance out of 20M
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So without secure chip the possible scenario is possible: 1) have one very fast gateway in a data center 2) have 10 not so fast gateways 3) pass all of the speedtests of 1) and pretend it was one of 2)
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:18 PM
Is that like a huge gaming vector though?
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:18 PM
anyways, this is the argument we're up against. let's come back to it after migration and just stick to the $40 per gateway and get through migration
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Is that like a huge gaming vector though?
It's an example of why you need the chip, not necessarily a good example of how to game.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:19 PM
Could a cloud gateway work?
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:19 PM
hmm.. so any data from the radio only really comes from the gateway if I'm understanding this correctly. And the gateway can be made to lie about how many radios are attached?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:19 PM
Slash solve that
🤔 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Slash solve that
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:19 PM
Avatar
If someone would propose onboarding per gateway now and allowing the gateway onboards to count towards an equivalent amount of radios I would vote for that. Contrary to what some people seem to think I very much want MOBILE to succeed.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:19 PM
Like one of then arguments against cloud gateways was it’s not decentralized
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If someone would propose onboarding per gateway now and allowing the gateway onboards to count towards an equivalent amount of radios I would vote for that. Contrary to what some people seem to think I very much want MOBILE to succeed.
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:20 PM
this is what I want
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:20 PM
I don’t think anyone thinks you are anti mobile
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If someone would propose onboarding per gateway now and allowing the gateway onboards to count towards an equivalent amount of radios I would vote for that. Contrary to what some people seem to think I very much want MOBILE to succeed.
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:20 PM
but we don't need a hip for that, we already have it.
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:20 PM
Easy there Sherman. lol
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
this is what I want
Write it up, I'll submit it similar to KeithR if you don't know/want GitHub and lets get the ball rolling?
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
but we don't need a hip for that, we already have it.
yep. $40 is already set in HIP51. Price is already solved. (edited)
23:21
We just need to vote no to HIP80. [to get rid of it as an excuse to wait to pay] (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
We just need to vote no to HIP80. [to get rid of it as an excuse to wait to pay] (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:21 PM
You can’t say that in here
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:21 PM
why do we need to vote on hip80, just scrap it
Avatar
Personally I think the HIP process would be far more efficient if we could keep votes tidy like that: single issue, simple, yes-no and done.
💯 3
✅ 2
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Personally I think the HIP process would be far more efficient if we could keep votes tidy like that: single issue, simple, yes-no and done.
It makes the HIP super easy to write...says the guy who wrote a single issue HIP. 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:22 PM
Yes. It was weird the argument against the single issue HIP was “well 80 is almost ready so let’s just pass that”
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:22 PM
Keith is helping me write it. me engrish no gud
🙂 1
Avatar
Can we dole out each of the parts of HIP80 into separate HIPs please?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:24 PM
Already doing that
❤️ 1
💪 1
Avatar
brainstormer called dibs on the V factor solution.
✌️ 1
Avatar
The amount of text required for a non-implementation HIP should be fairly minimal, the amount of text required for an implementational HIP: go all out because it needs to be precise.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:25 PM
no, I don't care to be author
Avatar
too late, you're it 🤭
Avatar
Although I am failing him as a ghost writer as I conclude it won't work (that it was wrong to begin with it, not his take on it).
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:25 PM
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:25 PM
Just throw me on it too
23:25
I think they give you a cookie if you write a HIP now
🍪 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:26 PM
yeah Keith called out that the sqrt V isn't going to work the way we think it will so maybe that also needs to change
Avatar
I am trying to build out some models to show it wouldn't have worked from the beginning.
👍 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:27 PM
so at the end, do nothing lol. we already have a hip51. just give me a fucking place to pay it!
Avatar
What do you want to do with V instead? Or nothing?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:27 PM
I’ve been told adding ‘sqrt(‘ to the code is an easy change
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve been told adding ‘sqrt(‘ to the code is an easy change
It doesn't work.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:27 PM
I was told there were models
Avatar
I would like to see them so that I can show how they don't work.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:28 PM
Shut up and vote yes, don’t worry about the models
😄 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:28 PM
it's all Valerie's fault for suggesting the mobile working group to come up with a onboarding fee. if she would have just passed the hat around and say pay up, we'd have this resolved long ago
😂 3
Avatar
I think the goal of the sqrt( was to prevent veHNT delegation from eclipsing the data transfer part
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Shut up and vote yes, don’t worry about the models
In that case, no need to write the HIP...HIP51 already does just as good for V and D.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:29 PM
Don’t the roots just cancel each other out?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think the goal of the sqrt( was to prevent veHNT delegation from eclipsing the data transfer part
You can't transform the delegation ratio to stop a whale's influence.
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
it's all Valerie's fault for suggesting the mobile working group to come up with a onboarding fee. if she would have just passed the hat around and say pay up, we'd have this resolved long ago
that's what I said back then, but I was lambasted that it was unfair to ask gateway owners who just paid thousands on radios to ask for another dime 😂
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Don’t the roots just cancel each other out?
Nope.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:29 PM
I mean I know they don’t
23:29
But they feel like they should
23:30
Well the funny thing was Valerie asked us to do it, we started talking about it and Boris just flat out said no, we’re talking about mappers now (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:31 PM
and then gateholder took the leadership position
23:31
And max got mad
😂 2
23:31
lol
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
You can't transform the delegation ratio to stop a whale's influence.
I think the way they meant it was: Given that you have: 1) 1 subDAO doing massive amounts of data 2) one subDAO doing nothing but having a massive amount of veHNT delegated that number 2 would eclipse 1) while 2) is the one providing value.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Well the funny thing was Valerie asked us to do it, we started talking about it and Boris just flat out said no, we’re talking about mappers now (edited)
realistically the PoC working group had nothing to do with it anyway
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:32 PM
Maybe Valerie just want us to pass the hat around
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
And max got mad
Max - Just Max 04/06/2023 11:32 PM
So mad. It had nothing to do with the content
23:33
I have otherwise been afraid to talk in those meetings (edited)
Avatar
I also think it's tricky to put Nova people on the spot to comment on tokenomics too much
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:33 PM
it's too much to do before migration, we can come back to it later
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think the way they meant it was: Given that you have: 1) 1 subDAO doing massive amounts of data 2) one subDAO doing nothing but having a massive amount of veHNT delegated that number 2 would eclipse 1) while 2) is the one providing value.
And my point is that square rooting (or any transformation) the amount staked changes nothing about #2. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
And my point is that square rooting (or any transformation) the amount staked changes nothing about #2. (edited)
It does change the amount of weight veHNT has in relation to the data transfer right?
23:34
I fully agree with you that you can't stop it though, don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to figure out how they modeled it
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It does change the amount of weight veHNT has in relation to the data transfer right?
I do not think so. The ratio of delegation to subDAO 1 versus the amount delegated to subDAO 2 is not affected by transforming the amount staked.
👍 1
Avatar
I won't model it because my models are 'irrelevant to the questions at hand' or so I'm told coolcry
coolcry 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I do not think so. The ratio of delegation to subDAO 1 versus the amount delegated to subDAO 2 is not affected by transforming the amount staked.
I believe your number skills after seeing that you graphed the stuff last night previous time of day. (edited)
Avatar
I am going to run a couple of staking versus delegating models on the balances of all 713,000 wallets over the weekend. Come Monday, I will be very dug in on my answer. 🙂
🙂 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I do not think so. The ratio of delegation to subDAO 1 versus the amount delegated to subDAO 2 is not affected by transforming the amount staked.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:37 PM
Why not? it's not the only factor. It's like saying res5 matters, but res6 doesn't for scaling.
Avatar
Intuitively I would say that having (delegated stake/10) * data transfer compared to (delegated stake/2) * data transfer makes data transfer heavier though
23:40
(which is similar to what the sqrt() is doing)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Intuitively I would say that having (delegated stake/10) * data transfer compared to (delegated stake/2) * data transfer makes data transfer heavier though
dividing both sides of the ratio by 10 doesn't change the ratio.
23:41
the ratio is what determines the resulting HNT distributed. So yes, you made smaller numbers, but still 85% went to one of the subDAOs.
23:41
The V factor seems fine to me as is, is my conclusion at this time.
23:41
It can't be improved upon based on its current purpose. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
the ratio is what determines the resulting HNT distributed. So yes, you made smaller numbers, but still 85% went to one of the subDAOs.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/06/2023 11:42 PM
only if A and D are the same between the two subDAOs
Avatar
Where do I pay my $40?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Where do I pay my $40?
i will hold it for you, want my wallet? Troll
😄 3
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:43 PM
if you work for the foundation I would send it right away
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
if you work for the foundation I would send it right away
i wouldn't do that, also not to the Fdn (</mandatory security talk>)
👍 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:48 PM
what would they need to do to accept onboarding fees for 5g gateway ? Put a pay button on the dashboard? anything they have to code on the backend?
23:49
how hard is it to implement so we can start paying and have it count toward the protocol score (edited)
Avatar
Depending on how they want it, it could be as simple as: 1) burn the onboarding fee to some wallet (similar to how voting is done) 2) upon transition to Solana, delete the account from the ledger
23:50
that would essentially be the same as native burn
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:50 PM
sounds like they're not ready to take our money
Avatar
or: 1) burn the onboarding fee to some wallet 2) use the DC on that wallet to mint the NFTs
23:51
I'd accept a grace period to do it all on the new chain of, say 2 weeks?
Avatar
OK. I have to backtrack. The language of the requested change to the V factor of the Utility Score says the square root of the amount staked. The math is applied to how much is delegated to each subDAO. So while my reasoning is correct what I thought was wanted was in error. So there is an effect of changing the V factor...because it is transforming the amount delegated. So hang in there for what the effect is. You might be surprised.
23:53
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/06/2023 11:53 PM
kind of sus they want us to bicker over what's already established in a hip and not work on any of the implementation based on that hip
Avatar
How do I save the spreadsheet for others to use?
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
Mobile kills IoT in weeks versus a few years.
😮 1
23:57
Switch the heavy delegation to mobile and you get this...
23:57
23:57
So log(x) does the best job of saving IoT when mobile has all the data and all of the veHNT delegated.
23:59
So it would seem to me that Max's suggestion that we wait until after the 10-day land rush has merit since the effect is different based on amount delegated. However...the amount delegated can change.
23:59
If the intention is protect IoT period, you better hope that most veHNT is not delegated to IoT.
Avatar
You don't think log(x) is too harsh? In that example people are delegating 40 times more to MOBILE and it burns more DC corect?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You don't think log(x) is too harsh? In that example people are delegating 40 times more to MOBILE and it burns more DC corect?
Not if you want to protect IoT under that scenario.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
The issue isn't disparate amounts of staking. It is significant differences in delegation. And since that is simply a ratio, no transformation can mitigate a huge delta between the two totals [of veHNT delegated].
The issue isn't disparate amounts of staking. It is significant differences in delegation. And since that is simply a ratio, no transformation can mitigate a huge delta between the two totals [of veHNT delegated].
Sure that's correct? Say total amount of veHNT existing is 11x. Whale owns 10x, rest of the world owns x. Whale delegates everything to subDAO A, rest of the world everything to B. Ratio is 10x:1x=10:1 Now we introduce a sqrt. So ratios are sqrt(10x):sqrt(x)=sqrt(10):1. Influence of the whale does look quite smaller now. Is there anything I am missing?
(edited)
Avatar
But at what cost? I don't think we should kill IOT because MOBILE can hit the ground running while IOT needs more time, but I also don't think we should keep protecting IOT when at some point (hopefully never) the consensus is that it's dead. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
The issue isn't disparate amounts of staking. It is significant differences in delegation. And since that is simply a ratio, no transformation can mitigate a huge delta between the two totals [of veHNT delegated].
Sure that's correct? Say total amount of veHNT existing is 11x. Whale owns 10x, rest of the world owns x. Whale delegates everything to subDAO A, rest of the world everything to B. Ratio is 10x:1x=10:1 Now we introduce a sqrt. So ratios are sqrt(10x):sqrt(x)=sqrt(10):1. Influence of the whale does look quite smaller now. Is there anything I am missing?
(edited)
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:04 AM
That scenario won’t happen though
Avatar
If a whale delegates to IoT, then attenuating that affect is counterproductive to the idea of protecting IoT. If the whale delegates to Mobile, then attenuating the effect is desired and achieved if the idea is to protect IoT.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That scenario won’t happen though
I am replying to a purely mathematical argument here. (edited)
Avatar
Also important to remember that this formula is used for all subDAOs, some of which might not be worth protecting at all
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:06 AM
Please remind me why we need V in the first place?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Please remind me why we need V in the first place?
To reward the group think of which subDAO is more valuable.
Avatar
V is to incentivize staking
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Please remind me why we need V in the first place?
To be able kickstart a subDAO with lots of future revenue potential that has no/low current revenue
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
To be able kickstart a subDAO with lots of future revenue potential that has no/low current revenue
If and only if the group believes in that subDAO by delegating to it. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
If and only if the group believes in that subDAO by delegating to it. (edited)
Yes
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:08 AM
i don't know about that. i delegate to whatever gives me the most subdao tokens
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:08 AM
Just seems to be causing more trouble than it's worth. 😅
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Yes
So it rewards the belief of the group as to which subDAOs are likely to be more valuable than the other subDAOs.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:08 AM
if it happens to be 90/10 protocol score , that's how im going to delegate my share
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
i don't know about that. i delegate to whatever gives me the most subdao tokens
Given that the subDAO tokens are indirect proxies to HNT.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
So it rewards the belief of the group as to which subDAOs are likely to be more valuable than the other subDAOs.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:09 AM
Self fulfilling prophecy. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Self fulfilling prophecy. 🙂
In this case, that looks to be a true statement.
👍 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:09 AM
most will delegate to IoT because IoT will have most of the emissions
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
So it rewards the belief of the group as to which subDAOs are likely to be more valuable than the other subDAOs.
Well, for this mechanism to be beneficial to Helium, the assumption must hold, that on some kind of average of all veHNT delegators, their expectations of future revenue is roughly correct. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Well, for this mechanism to be beneficial to Helium, the assumption must hold, that on some kind of average of all veHNT delegators, their expectations of future revenue is roughly correct. (edited)
crowd-sourcing of such decisions have been shown to be relatively accurate.
Avatar
There has to be something the world can use to signal that a subDAO is perceived as worthless (or super valuable) (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:10 AM
few will delegate to Mobile only because the they get more Mobile because less delegated to that subdao
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There has to be something the world can use to signal that a subDAO is perceived as worthless (or super valuable) (edited)
de-delegate.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There has to be something the world can use to signal that a subDAO is perceived as worthless (or super valuable) (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:10 AM
Yeah... not installing the network hardware. 😉
00:11
the Staking was always a method for the rich to move and extract wealth out of the system without having to install anything. The more they staked, the more that DAO got, the more they made.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
de-delegate.
I forgot to hit reply, it was as a response to why V in the first place.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I forgot to hit reply, it was as a response to why V in the first place.
Has your question been answered to your satisfaction?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
the Staking was always a method for the rich to move and extract wealth out of the system without having to install anything. The more they staked, the more that DAO got, the more they made.
The 100x multiplier is there to help the poor outweigh the rich that want liquidity. no?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Has your question been answered to your satisfaction?
I gave an answer, wasn’t my question. I’m satisfied with it, not sure everyone else is
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
The 100x multiplier is there to help the poor outweigh the rich that want liquidity. no?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:13 AM
That applies to everyone, thus cancels out. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There has to be something the world can use to signal that a subDAO is perceived as worthless (or super valuable) (edited)
Add "perceived" to your sentence and I think it becomes perfect. There has to be something the world can use to signal that a subDAO is perceived to be worthless (or super valuable)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
That applies to everyone, thus cancels out. 🙂
Yep.
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:14 AM
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Add "perceived" to your sentence and I think it becomes perfect. There has to be something the world can use to signal that a subDAO is perceived to be worthless (or super valuable)
Good nuance
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
crowd-sourcing of such decisions have been shown to be relatively accurate.
That has been my main big question for a while: if we assume, on average, the expectations of the veHNT delegating crowd regarding future subDAO revenue ("total future and current value" to be more precise) are correct and how we account for it via the V factor is also well designed - shouldn't if follow that the A factor is unnecessary? (edited)
Avatar
So we have perception (V), evidence (D), and influence (A). (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Has your question been answered to your satisfaction?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:16 AM
As to the why, yes. Just not sure it's useful. 🙂 It's like congress voting on their own salaries. Never goes well.
Avatar
A is to put value on a network and thus solve cold start problems.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
So we have perception (V), evidence (D), and influence (A). (edited)
We have measures for total utility (future and present) (V), present utility (D), and ? (A)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
We have measures for total utility (future and present) (V), present utility (D), and ? (A)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:17 AM
network hardware invested value? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
network hardware invested value? (edited)
capex, indeed, that’s how it was explained at hip51 times
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
groot
A is to put value on a network and thus solve cold start problems.
If we "trust" crowd-sourced decisions, then it does seem A becomes unnecessary.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
network hardware invested value? (edited)
Yes, but is that a measure for the network's utility, too? Maybe it is: but isn't a redundant measure for that? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Yes, but is that a measure for the network's utility, too? Maybe it is: but isn't a redundant measure for that? (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:18 AM
The utility is covered by D 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
The utility is covered by D 🙂
Only the present utility.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Only the present utility.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:19 AM
And A is the present invested network hardware worth
Avatar
if you don’t get immediate response to capex you won’t do it thus a network never starts. The perceived future value is of course also based on A but with the same reasoning it is actually V that is redundant
Avatar
I don't think we want to change V without having an understanding of how much is delegated to each subDAO. But I think once we know that, we are going to say are we sure we want to commit to it on the chance that delegation is changed? Which by the way, will be super easy to do.
Avatar
also, since it isn’t just capex it is actually burn similar to D (just non-recurrent) it seems like a good metric
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:21 AM
if we're going to do anything about the V, it should be now.
Avatar
Seems at this point in the discussion, the only feasible way to protect IoT is to count all of the onboarding and assert fees across time not just per epoch.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I don't think we want to change V without having an understanding of how much is delegated to each subDAO. But I think once we know that, we are going to say are we sure we want to commit to it on the chance that delegation is changed? Which by the way, will be super easy to do.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:22 AM
delegations are locked for X amount of time, IIRC?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Seems at this point in the discussion, the only feasible way to protect IoT is to count all of the onboarding and assert fees across time not just per epoch.
The A factor isn’t limited to the epoch right?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
delegations are locked for X amount of time, IIRC?
You can change to which subDAO it is delegated as long as you don't change the position itself.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The A factor isn’t limited to the epoch right?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:22 AM
I thought it was all time, right?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
You can change to which subDAO it is delegated as long as you don't change the position itself.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:22 AM
ah gotcha 🙂
Avatar
"position" is time and amount.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
I thought it was all time, right?
As-is it will be active devices (for some undefined definition of active)
👍 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:23 AM
active based on reward i believe
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
And A is the present invested network hardware worth
But is the invested network hardware a good measure for utility? Compare situations F and G: (F) Amount of x million $ of hardware value is perfectly located to provide the best coverage possible. (G) Amount of x million $ of hardware value is located in one hex, providing the worst coverage possible. Very different utilities of the network, but same value for the A factor. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
But is the invested network hardware a good measure for utility? Compare situations F and G: (F) Amount of x million $ of hardware value is perfectly located to provide the best coverage possible. (G) Amount of x million $ of hardware value is located in one hex, providing the worst coverage possible. Very different utilities of the network, but same value for the A factor. (edited)
That’s why it is discounted by a 4th root.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
But is the invested network hardware a good measure for utility? Compare situations F and G: (F) Amount of x million $ of hardware value is perfectly located to provide the best coverage possible. (G) Amount of x million $ of hardware value is located in one hex, providing the worst coverage possible. Very different utilities of the network, but same value for the A factor. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:24 AM
Again, utility is covered by D
Avatar
It isn’t the most valuable in the formula for the exact reason that capex alone is not doing much (edited)
Avatar
I feel for the folks that wake up tomorrow and have to read this three hour discussion! Pretty heavy.
😅 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:24 AM
the F and G shouldn't be considered, that is an issue the subdao has to deal with to provide the best possible network coverage and lessen the gaming aspect of it
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That’s why it is discounted by a 4th root.
Provocative question: If the measure is useless, shouldn't we discount it by 1000th root?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Provocative question: If the measure is useless, shouldn't we discount it by 1000th root?
Why do you think it’s worthless?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I feel for the folks that wake up tomorrow and have to read this three hour discussion! Pretty heavy.
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:25 AM
not that heavy lol we're all friendly
🍻 2
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Why do you think it’s worthless?
I am trying to figure out if it is useless.
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
not that heavy lol we're all friendly
And the jerk Dutch is here, imagine that Troll
🤣 2
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
not that heavy lol we're all friendly
Oh I think it has been fruitful for sure. Heavy topics. Very friendly conversation. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I am trying to figure out if it is useless.
I know, I just bounced your question back😂
00:27
I think it is a metric that on its own doesn’t mean much, but it does mean that the subDAO in question is building, which it can’t do if building gets you nothing.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:27 AM
is capex important in measuring utility
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I know, I just bounced your question back😂
Atm, I haven't heard a convincing argument, why this measure improves the quality of the assessment of the utility of a subDAO. If there isn't one, we can/should drop it.
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
is capex important in measuring utility
No, it is a measure for possible utility
👍 1
00:28
Not to mention an enormous amount of burn.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:28 AM
the burn matters
Avatar
$40M was burned over the years, even if IOT would have 0 data transfer it still provided the DAO with $40M of burn.
00:30
Is that more valuable than $40M of recurrent burn? No that’s why it is discounted compared to recurrent burn.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
$40M was burned over the years, even if IOT would have 0 data transfer it still provided the DAO with $40M of burn.
And it is its best protection against any upstart subDAO. Like a good castle wall with a moat.
🏰 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
No, it is a measure for possible utility
Agree. Now the question is: does it add something to the already exisiting measure of possible utility (we already have V for that)? E.g. does it correct somehow if V is off (even temporarily)? (edited)
Avatar
I beginning to get worried about the fact that V can change overnight based on a tweet.
💯 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:31 AM
the D is just the epoch isn't it? (edited)
✅ 1
👍 1
Avatar
I think it's an elegant way of incorporating the historic burn (which, contrary to data burn is not redistributed in the form of DNT as rewards).
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
the D is just the epoch isn't it? (edited)
rolling average of the last 30 epochs? (edited)
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
All time data transfer?
🙀 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
All time data transfer?
No
Avatar
burn sorry.
Avatar
No. Or else you would still be rewarding the network after it mostly shuts down. (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:33 AM
all time? why?
Avatar
I hope you meant A instead of D, because D would be bad 😆
✅ 1
Avatar
All time burn is the only castle wall that protects IoT and only IoT. (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:34 AM
and kill all the other subdao before it even has a chance
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
and kill all the other subdao before it even has a chance
I call bullshit on that fear.
Avatar
If any other subDAO has a very slow start and first spends $100M on building their network before data starts moving I think that's still valuable burn and the A factor provides for that.
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:35 AM
Yeah, all time D sounds bad. (So. Many. Jokes..... 🤯 😵 😆 )
Avatar
Wow it turns out HIP51 wasn't that bad after all!
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
and kill all the other subdao before it even has a chance
A is heavily discounted so I don't think the worry that it will stop other subDAOs from prospering is legitimate. What it also does is tying subDAOs into the DAO by putting skin in the game and be rewarded for doing so. (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 12:36 AM
oh thats one of the sqrt ones
Avatar
Same reason, why I strongly oppose an A factor that builds on total of fees paid ever instead of fees paid by active devices. It contaings an element of a measure for the past. Not for current or future utility. If e.g. an earthquake destroys my house, the utility is gone. No matter how much the destroyed house was worth before.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
oh thats one of the sqrt ones
A is 4th root, yes.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Same reason, why I strongly oppose an A factor that builds on total of fees paid ever instead of fees paid by active devices. It contaings an element of a measure for the past. Not for current or future utility. If e.g. an earthquake destroys my house, the utility is gone. No matter how much the destroyed house was worth before.
Now that is a compromise I can accept. Hell on calculating it each night but so be it. It is ok for a computer to be told to work hard.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
A is heavily discounted so I don't think the worry that it will stop other subDAOs from prospering is legitimate. What it also does is tying subDAOs into the DAO by putting skin in the game and be rewarded for doing so. (edited)
You can do that with an compulsory onboarding fee, that is not accounted for in the subDAO utility score.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Same reason, why I strongly oppose an A factor that builds on total of fees paid ever instead of fees paid by active devices. It contaings an element of a measure for the past. Not for current or future utility. If e.g. an earthquake destroys my house, the utility is gone. No matter how much the destroyed house was worth before.
The HIP51 A factor is active devices and I think we should stick with the active part and not have an implementational detail be the reason for creating the problems you describe.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Same reason, why I strongly oppose an A factor that builds on total of fees paid ever instead of fees paid by active devices. It contaings an element of a measure for the past. Not for current or future utility. If e.g. an earthquake destroys my house, the utility is gone. No matter how much the destroyed house was worth before.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:38 AM
Seems fair. Active only.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
You can do that with an compulsory onboarding fee, that is not accounted for in the subDAO utility score.
like I said, and rewarded for doing so. Without A a subDAO is incentivized to do the bare minimum.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The HIP51 A factor is active devices and I think we should stick with the active part and not have an implementational detail be the reason for creating the problems you describe.
Agree. I am opposing the proposed (by Max iirc) change to include onboarding fees of all devices ever onboarded.
Avatar
All-time burn of active devices.
00:39
We need to set the mobile to radios...
Avatar
Avatar
groot
like I said, and rewarded for doing so. Without A a subDAO is incentivized to do the bare minimum.
Yes, but the bare minimum may be enough. It is not the job of a subDAO to do one-time burns of HNT. Its job is to build useful infrastructure. (If we need HNT demand for paying onboarding fees to create enough demand for HNT to keep the flywheel going, so be it, but that's a different line of reasoning. (And I don't think need that, even if we may have needed it once). (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Agree. I am opposing the proposed (by Max iirc) change to include onboarding fees of all devices ever onboarded.
We've came back from that idea, it was mostly to solve a implementational detail. I have turned that PR into a draft as to not yet make it disappear (we might have other ideas) but just all onboarded ever doesn't seem like a good idea when thinking it through. So, agreed. (edited)
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Yes, but the bare minimum may be enough. It is not the job of a subDAO to do one-time burns of HNT. Its job is to build useful infrastructure. (If we need HNT demand for paying onboarding fees to create enough demand for HNT to keep the flywheel going, so be it, but that's a different line of reasoning. (And I don't think need that, even if we may have needed it once). (edited)
For tying into the DAO, maybe. But I would still like to reward e.g. wifi dabba for spending boatloads of cash on building a network that we think will have serious burn in the future.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
For tying into the DAO, maybe. But I would still like to reward e.g. wifi dabba for spending boatloads of cash on building a network that we think will have serious burn in the future.
Wouldn't the V factor reflect that enough already? Many people may be unsure if WiFi Dabba will be a success. If they see hundreds of thousands devices deployes, shouldn't that increase confidence / boost expectations of WiFI Dabba's success and thus increase veHNT delegation towards it? (edited)
Avatar
If there is something that Solana has taught the world is that lazy stake is a significant thing. Also, I don't think there will be a single argument that will make A worthwhile, but the combination of factors it contributes to, in my opinion, does make it worthwhile. One of the most major ones being that it rewards the non-recurrent burn, because lets face it, burn is burn.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If there is something that Solana has taught the world is that lazy stake is a significant thing. Also, I don't think there will be a single argument that will make A worthwhile, but the combination of factors it contributes to, in my opinion, does make it worthwhile. One of the most major ones being that it rewards the non-recurrent burn, because lets face it, burn is burn.
What's lazy stake?
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If there is something that Solana has taught the world is that lazy stake is a significant thing. Also, I don't think there will be a single argument that will make A worthwhile, but the combination of factors it contributes to, in my opinion, does make it worthwhile. One of the most major ones being that it rewards the non-recurrent burn, because lets face it, burn is burn.
One time burn should be negligible in the long run. Always been wondering, if trying to increase one time burns to increase HNT value isn't just like taking money from people only to give it back to them. Doesn't sound sustainable. (edited)
Avatar
Lazy stake is stake that does not move even though game theory or market conditions says that it should. In the case of Solana there are for examples been validators that rugged and moved their commission to 100% and yet there is stake that doesn't move even though it is better for them to do so.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Wouldn't the V factor reflect that enough already? Many people may be unsure if WiFi Dabba will be a success. If they see hundreds of thousands devices deployes, shouldn't that increase confidence / boost expectations of WiFI Dabba's success and thus increase veHNT delegation towards it? (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:49 AM
Still think V shouldn't matter. If they are confident in the dao, they should install and contribute to D and A.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Still think V shouldn't matter. If they are confident in the dao, they should install and contribute to D and A.
Isn't it like saying: The Things Network should have taken over the world, as everone knows, once there is a network fully built, it will be really valuable?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
One time burn should be negligible in the long run. Always been wondering, if trying to increase one time burns to increase HNT value isn't just like taking money from people only to give it back to them. Doesn't sound sustainable. (edited)
I don't think the $40M onboarding fees can currently be described as insignificant. Nor will the onboards of 1M MOBILE Hotspots be insignificant.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Isn't it like saying: The Things Network should have taken over the world, as everone knows, once there is a network fully built, it will be really valuable?
This is actually a great example, chapeau. Basically what PoC did for IOT is what the A factor will do for subDAOs
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't think the $40M onboarding fees can currently be described as insignificant. Nor will the onboards of 1M MOBILE Hotspots be insignificant.
I am talking total network lifetime. We expect tens, if not hundreds of billions in the long run, if all works out.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Isn't it like saying: The Things Network should have taken over the world, as everone knows, once there is a network fully built, it will be really valuable?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:51 AM
Sorry, not familiar enough with TTN to make that example mean much. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Isn't it like saying: The Things Network should have taken over the world, as everone knows, once there is a network fully built, it will be really valuable?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:52 AM
But no, still need D. A doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
This is actually a great example, chapeau. Basically what PoC did for IOT is what the A factor will do for subDAOs
I'd say: "...is what the V factor will do for subDAOs." The A is coming too late. It is a trailing indicator. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I'd say: "...is what the V factor will do for subDAOs." The A is coming too late. It is a trailing indicator. (edited)
I don't think the network would ever been built based on the promise alone, which is where A comes in.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I'd say: "...is what the V factor will do for subDAOs." The A is coming too late. It is a trailing indicator. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:54 AM
If the other factors were 0, that'd be true, but they're not. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Sorry, not familiar enough with TTN to make that example mean much. 🙂
You can just forget about any specific network and say: "Any network should already have taken over the world before Helium came into existence".
Avatar
Although I see merit in your point of view, I just don't think people would trust a magic network appearing out of thin air without something showing that it is building. And the building is supported by A (albeit trailing).
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
You can just forget about any specific network and say: "Any network should already have taken over the world before Helium came into existence".
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:55 AM
Sorry, not seeing the logic in that statement. Just having the network doesn't mean it's going to get used. Again, A doesn't exist in a vacuum.
00:56
You don't need V to bootstrap incentives to build
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Still think V shouldn't matter. If they are confident in the dao, they should install and contribute to D and A.
I rephrase: What I mean is: this sounds like saying: we don't need incentives to kickstart a network. Because people who know that it will be valuable in the future will just build it.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I rephrase: What I mean is: this sounds like saying: we don't need incentives to kickstart a network. Because people who know that it will be valuable in the future will just build it.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:58 AM
We have incentives though. Without V. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
You don't need V to bootstrap incentives to build
Well, maybe our differences regarding V and A are differences about how strong the incentives should be.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Well, maybe our differences regarding V and A are differences about how strong the incentives should be.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:58 AM
Perhaps, yes. 🙂
00:59
I feel V is simply a cash grab 🙂
Avatar
Going afk (or: trying to).
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Going afk (or: trying to).
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 12:59 AM
I should too. Getting pretty late here. Have a good night morning. 🙂 (edited)
👍 1
😴 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
I feel V is simply a cash grab 🙂
Not my feeling.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
I should too. Getting pretty late here. Have a good night morning. 🙂 (edited)
It is morning here. But thanks! And good night to you! (edited)
🌞 1
Avatar
Thank you all for the fantastic discussion. Nearly four hours of it. Good night. I am off to watch a movie upstairs.
🎥 1
🤝 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Agree. I am opposing the proposed (by Max iirc) change to include onboarding fees of all devices ever onboarded.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:10 AM
Yea I’m off that suggestion. Worked it out, doesn’t work.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I rephrase: What I mean is: this sounds like saying: we don't need incentives to kickstart a network. Because people who know that it will be valuable in the future will just build it.
I don’t think that’s true, incentivizing the building phase has been shown to significantly contribute to Helium’s success.
Avatar
Well, I’m back online here if anybody has suggestions how to improve HIP-80. There have been a number of other suggestions, up to and including the idea that Helium MOBILE could fork from Helium IOT using its own token, and both networks go their separate ways, which would obviate the need for a Utility Score altogether. However, that and all the other suggestions I’ve identified are distinct proposals from HIP-80. Are there proposals for improvements to HIP-80 I’ve missed?
01:17
Oh, KeithR is typing. Apologies, you did make a suggestion, log(veHNT) instead of sqrt(veHNT). I do think that’s too harsh, as groot also mentioned, but it is a valid suggestion.
Avatar
I have come to the conclusion that only change we need is that A includes all onboarding and assert fees by only those hotspots that earned in that epoch. A very slight nuance that has a very nice effect of tying the past and present and protecting IoT in the manner that we want.
01:18
No change to V.
Avatar
Ah, OK. 🙂
Avatar
@ferebee you will want to read through the last four hours of posts. It has been fantastic.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:21 AM
I didn’t actually suggest a fork, was just illustrating if simplicity is the goal and if more HNT to IOT is the goal, that’s the solution
01:21
Why throw out just the A when you can throw it all out
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I have come to the conclusion that only change we need is that A includes all onboarding and assert fees by only those hotspots that earned in that epoch. A very slight nuance that has a very nice effect of tying the past and present and protecting IoT in the manner that we want.
As I understand it, that’s a very expensive calculation to do on-chain, as it would require taking sums over a database that doesn’t even currently exist (location asserts aren’t tracked except as past transactions AFAIK), and that every epoch. I disagree with using an A factor for other reasons as well, but if you would like to propose that, I suggest you discuss with Noah what the implementation impact would be.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I didn’t actually suggest a fork, was just illustrating if simplicity is the goal and if more HNT to IOT is the goal, that’s the solution
It was phrased as a suggestion. Hard to tell here sometimes what is meant as a suggestion, and what is only meant as a rhetorical device. If possible, I’d like to keep this channel focused on suggestions for improving HIP-80.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:26 AM
But then when I do that im told all I do is say negative things and I need to provide suggestions. We can’t have it both ways
01:27
I’ve suggested multiple times breaking it up into smaller bite sized HIPs. I went ahead and did that myself. Now I’m waiting for the channel
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 1:27 AM
People, why you torture me? Started reading back at 9:30 to 643 messages, and I'm still not halfway through and there are even more messages 😭
😁 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:28 AM
Well I’m going to bed if that makes you feel better
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Well I’m going to bed if that makes you feel better
We'll temp check in an hour ok? Troll
😂 3
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:29 AM
Let’s get an AMA scheduled for 2 hours from now too
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Well I’m going to bed if that makes you feel better
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 1:29 AM
You need to sleep anyway 😉
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But then when I do that im told all I do is say negative things and I need to provide suggestions. We can’t have it both ways
Well, in my view, most parts of HIP-80 are interrelated, which is why they are presented in a single HIP. Removing the A factor would be a bad idea, for example, in isolation, without an alternative approach towards respecting the investment made by IOT in the past. What could be removed from HIP-80 is the proposal to set a minimum $5 onboarding fee for all subDAOs. I’ve left that in so far because nobody seems to be opposed to that provision. So I don’t intend to break HIP-80 into multiple smaller HIPs. That doesn’t prevent people from presenting individual HIPs to achieve specific goals. groot has two PRs, though I’m not sure where you currently stand on them.
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 1:30 AM
Going back to reading.
01:31
Ok my eyes hurt from that objection.
Avatar
(Thanks for removing that! I do have epilepsy, but fortunately it’s not triggered by blinking. 🤣)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, in my view, most parts of HIP-80 are interrelated, which is why they are presented in a single HIP. Removing the A factor would be a bad idea, for example, in isolation, without an alternative approach towards respecting the investment made by IOT in the past. What could be removed from HIP-80 is the proposal to set a minimum $5 onboarding fee for all subDAOs. I’ve left that in so far because nobody seems to be opposed to that provision. So I don’t intend to break HIP-80 into multiple smaller HIPs. That doesn’t prevent people from presenting individual HIPs to achieve specific goals. groot has two PRs, though I’m not sure where you currently stand on them.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:33 AM
Yea so just remove that, make it it’s own HIP and solve that problem pre migration. Gateholder has graciously offered to throw a pizza party upon the passing of the HIP
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
If a whale delegates to IoT, then attenuating that affect is counterproductive to the idea of protecting IoT. If the whale delegates to Mobile, then attenuating the effect is desired and achieved if the idea is to protect IoT.
If IoT needs protection, it should be built in differently than changing the general calculation for V
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don’t think that’s true, incentivizing the building phase has been shown to significantly contribute to Helium’s success.
That is what I am trying to get at here.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
If IoT needs protection, it should be built in differently than changing the general calculation for V
Just making sure you understand me correctly @Max - Just Max: I tend to be in favor of adding the sqrt to the V calculation. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Just making sure you understand me correctly @Max - Just Max: I tend to be in favor of adding the sqrt to the V calculation. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:40 AM
I’m not really against that change. I also haven’t dug into it too deep, was waiting on that JMF model I’ve heard so much about
👍 1
01:41
In all seriousness my preference is to wait 3 weeks on the v score because we’ll have way more information
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Just making sure you understand me correctly @Max - Just Max: I tend to be in favor of adding the sqrt to the V calculation. (edited)
If the consensus is that it is a good idea someone should probably HIP it separately. From the changes HIP80 proposes that's (presumably) the least contentious one so a separate vote will streamline the process. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:42 AM
Alright I’m putting my phone in another room
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea so just remove that, make it it’s own HIP and solve that problem pre migration. Gateholder has graciously offered to throw a pizza party upon the passing of the HIP
I think the HIP draft you and and groot have written does address both the question of minimum onboarding fee, and also points out the missing MOBILE onboarding fees and requires them to be paid, though it doesn’t explain how that would happen. https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/ded3107abdc98a43953cacca8f08ff602452e56f/00xx-minimum-onboarding-fee.md So that’s a reasonable proposal. If you like, I can explain what disadvantages I see in PR #606 vs. HIP-80. It doesn’t motivate me to remove the provision of a $5 minimum onboarding fee from HIP-80. One of the fundamental tenets of HIP-80 is that the A factor should be removed, which creates a different incentive background for the fee than if we keep the A factor. If HIP-80 were to pass without specifying a minimum onboarding fee, a subDAO could drop the fee to zero, with possibly undesirable consequences.
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If the consensus is that it is a good idea someone should probably HIP it separately. From the changes HIP80 proposes that's (presumably) the least contentious one so a separate vote will streamline the process. (edited)
That’s a reasonable approach, though one would need to be careful to draft the HIP in such a way that it makes sense for various possible modified Utility Score formulas that might be proposed after it passes.
Avatar
BTW in case anybody is following along, PR #606 has been updated significantly, check it out. Given the discussion here I do find the section “Dead Networks” surprising, which states that the V factor “will decrease to 1” for a subDAO that has ceased to operate. As @groot himself points out above https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093804576332857396 this may not happen due to “lazy stake”. Given that PR #606 proposes a linear count of veHNT rather than the square root count proposed in HIP-80, that is less of an issue than it would be in HIP-80. (edited)
01:52
Avatar
don't think you're reading the latest, but alright.
Avatar
I took that snapshot two minutes ago.
01:53
Where is the latest version?
Avatar
Or maybe it is, my mistake.
01:54
Hard to recognize certain things when it's all fluffed up by GitHub and not in source. My bad 🤦
01:56
It doesn't really propose a formula though, it just retains what is as specifically stated.
01:58
It also says that it decreases to 1 as they redelegate, which is true. 🤷 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Or maybe it is, my mistake.
It also says that it decreases to 1 as they redelegate, which is true
If everyone undelegats is an empirical assumption that may turn out to be true. Or not. We even could have cases in which someone has HNT locked but not on cooldown, delegated to the "dead" subDAO and then loses the keys to the wallet. Which results in forever-delegation. But nevermind.
(edited)
Avatar
I agree with that. It restates the same formula given in HIP-51. That itself is a proposal. My point was that I don’t intend to remove the $5 minimum fee clause from HIP-80 and propose it separately, as Max suggested above https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093815778823917568 because incentives around the onboarding fee are fundamentally different under the Utility Score of HIP-51, and that of HIP-80. That’s why I bundled the $5 provision into HIP-80. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
BTW in case anybody is following along, PR #606 has been updated significantly, check it out. Given the discussion here I do find the section “Dead Networks” surprising, which states that the V factor “will decrease to 1” for a subDAO that has ceased to operate. As @groot himself points out above https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093804576332857396 this may not happen due to “lazy stake”. Given that PR #606 proposes a linear count of veHNT rather than the square root count proposed in HIP-80, that is less of an issue than it would be in HIP-80. (edited)
If we assume the top X% is not lazy, the dampening of the sqrt will make the bottom % more impactful so I don’t think this assertion is true.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If we assume the top X% is not lazy, the dampening of the sqrt will make the bottom % more impactful so I don’t think this assertion is true.
That’s what I said. Given that PR #606 proposes a linear count of veHNT rather than the square root count proposed in HIP-80, that [lazy stake] is less of an issue [in PR #606] than it would be in HIP-80. In the context of HIP-80, my observation was that: - In a successful Helium DAO, with $10M/month DC Burn, a dead network would receive 1.2% of emissions under HIP-80. - I view that as an opportunity cost (risk) of inviting future subDAOs into the Helium DAO. The attractive on-ramp provided by the “7” coefficient is another risk, as it provides HNT emissions to potential future subDAOs pre-revenue, which is what it is designed to do. (MOBILE, until Helium Mobile launches, is a pre-revenue subDAO in this sense as well.) The on-ramp addresses comments from Max that he is finding it challenging to convince potential TIPIN projects to consider becoming a Helium subDAO because it is economically unattractive to them. - Ultimately, Helium DAO has the final authority to eject subDAOs if it is found that they don’t bring value to the DAO. That wouldn’t necessarily kill the project either, they could simply fork and continue under their own token, as Max has pointed out in reference to Helium MOBILE. The Helium DAO only works if it provides advantages to both stronger and weaker networks, and if it provides a sum that is greater than its parts. That’s what the Helium Flywheel is supposed to do, combined with the ultimate mechanism of Burn & Mint Equilibrium over Net Emissions. (Which BTW I think is genius.) (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I feel for the folks that wake up tomorrow and have to read this three hour discussion! Pretty heavy.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 2:40 AM
Yeah, ME! Finally catching up. Stop typing, so I can read in peace. 😂
🤷‍♂️ 1
👆 1
🙂 2
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Yeah, ME! Finally catching up. Stop typing, so I can read in peace. 😂
Most of it is repetative from previous though. So not sure if I read it before or if its new.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Most of it is repetative from previous though. So not sure if I read it before or if its new.
I do like that KeithR’s proposal of using log(veHNT) rather than veHNT [HIP-51] or sqrt(veHNT) [HIP-80] has been discussed, and apparently he has retracted it, so we don’t have to consider a third proposal on that issue. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093812056974700544
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Most of it is repetative from previous though. So not sure if I read it before or if its new.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 2:45 AM
I'm getting a headache of these calculation numbers I saw passing by on our day off! 😂
🤕 1
ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 04/07/2023 2:56 AM
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s what I said. Given that PR #606 proposes a linear count of veHNT rather than the square root count proposed in HIP-80, that [lazy stake] is less of an issue [in PR #606] than it would be in HIP-80. In the context of HIP-80, my observation was that: - In a successful Helium DAO, with $10M/month DC Burn, a dead network would receive 1.2% of emissions under HIP-80. - I view that as an opportunity cost (risk) of inviting future subDAOs into the Helium DAO. The attractive on-ramp provided by the “7” coefficient is another risk, as it provides HNT emissions to potential future subDAOs pre-revenue, which is what it is designed to do. (MOBILE, until Helium Mobile launches, is a pre-revenue subDAO in this sense as well.) The on-ramp addresses comments from Max that he is finding it challenging to convince potential TIPIN projects to consider becoming a Helium subDAO because it is economically unattractive to them. - Ultimately, Helium DAO has the final authority to eject subDAOs if it is found that they don’t bring value to the DAO. That wouldn’t necessarily kill the project either, they could simply fork and continue under their own token, as Max has pointed out in reference to Helium MOBILE. The Helium DAO only works if it provides advantages to both stronger and weaker networks, and if it provides a sum that is greater than its parts. That’s what the Helium Flywheel is supposed to do, combined with the ultimate mechanism of Burn & Mint Equilibrium over Net Emissions. (Which BTW I think is genius.) (edited)
Glad we can still agree on some things! I admit I misread your post, obv not intentionally, but still wrong.
Avatar
Oh, we agree on many things. The debate here has gotten rather heated at times, which makes it difficult to focus on identifiable facts, and it does appear that some participants don’t value facts, or reason in general, as highly as I would like. I have a hard time responding to that in a useful way.
🤨 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Oh, we agree on many things. The debate here has gotten rather heated at times, which makes it difficult to focus on identifiable facts, and it does appear that some participants don’t value facts, or reason in general, as highly as I would like. I have a hard time responding to that in a useful way.
No doubt, it’s just three letter acronyms we disagree on 🤭
Avatar
I’m drawing a blank there. Before explaining, please consider whether doing so will advance the discussion in a useful direction. 😆
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I’m drawing a blank there. Before explaining, please consider whether doing so will advance the discussion in a useful direction. 😆
It was a joke for both DAO and VxDxA
Avatar
No comment. 🙃
😂 2
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Glad we can still agree on some things! I admit I misread your post, obv not intentionally, but still wrong.
As far as I can see, there are two types of argument to be had for and against HIP-80. The first is the ideological or philosophical type. An example of that is that some form of “justice” is served if the DAO Utility Score explicitly takes into account, numerically, some portion of the $40M onboarding fees burned by IOT Hotspot owners since the launch of Helium. In my view, that isn’t important at all. (I have burned some of those fees myself.) In your view, as I understand it, this aspect of justice is important. (Correct me if that is an improper characterization.) We can probably argue until we’re blue in the face whether it is or isn’t “just” to remove this number from the calculation. We probably won’t be able to convince each other. The only solution there IMO is to present both sides of this philosophical or moral argument, and let a vote decide. The second type of argument is the practical type. That’s where I would prefer to focus, as that’s where useful improvements to HIP-80 might come from. Examples of that are: - Simplicity, including simplicity of modeling and implementation. To my knowledge and belief, HIP-80 is simpler in both ways. That can be debated. It can also be debated whether simplicity is itself desirable. - Special-case protection to IOT emissions over the coming years, if the DC Burn of LoRa follows the slow growth path expected by many, and MOBILE grows quickly, as we all hope. It can be debated whether that protection is appropriate and/or useful at all, and whether HIP-80 provides it to an appropriate degree. - On-ramp of artificially high emissions to new subDAOs pre-revenue. This applies both to MOBILE now until Helium Mobile launches, and also to potential future subDAOs. As we look at this, I suggest it’s worth bearing in mind that a small reduction in the emissions to a dominant subDAO can provide a large increase in the emissions to a pre-revenue subDAO. That might be seen as a principle of solidarity. To the extent that the Helium Flywheel benefits from a plurality of subDAOs, it could be in the interests of all. As we look at the last point, we might return to the ideological side of things. Many societies consider a principle of solidarity to be useful. It’s the basis of progressive taxation and trade unions, for example. But opinions differ, and I’d be grateful to everybody if we could try to separate the ideological point of view from the pragmatic point of view as much as possible. (Yes, that’s difficult.) Otherwise, as we’ve seen, discussions get extremely difficult to follow.
👆 1
👎 1
partysolana 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
3500?
The currant number is around 3700 with almost 10k being purchased
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
The currant number is around 3700 with almost 10k being purchased
3900 have earned mobile in the last month
👍 1
05:32
3879 if you want to be picky
05:32
3881 yesterday
05:34
So thats the ones gifted with basic income. When will basic income stop? When Data transfer starts, or when PoC starts?
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
most will delegate to IoT because IoT will have most of the emissions
This is precisely what I am talking about it is known as the "free surface effect"
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
As far as I can see, there are two types of argument to be had for and against HIP-80. The first is the ideological or philosophical type. An example of that is that some form of “justice” is served if the DAO Utility Score explicitly takes into account, numerically, some portion of the $40M onboarding fees burned by IOT Hotspot owners since the launch of Helium. In my view, that isn’t important at all. (I have burned some of those fees myself.) In your view, as I understand it, this aspect of justice is important. (Correct me if that is an improper characterization.) We can probably argue until we’re blue in the face whether it is or isn’t “just” to remove this number from the calculation. We probably won’t be able to convince each other. The only solution there IMO is to present both sides of this philosophical or moral argument, and let a vote decide. The second type of argument is the practical type. That’s where I would prefer to focus, as that’s where useful improvements to HIP-80 might come from. Examples of that are: - Simplicity, including simplicity of modeling and implementation. To my knowledge and belief, HIP-80 is simpler in both ways. That can be debated. It can also be debated whether simplicity is itself desirable. - Special-case protection to IOT emissions over the coming years, if the DC Burn of LoRa follows the slow growth path expected by many, and MOBILE grows quickly, as we all hope. It can be debated whether that protection is appropriate and/or useful at all, and whether HIP-80 provides it to an appropriate degree. - On-ramp of artificially high emissions to new subDAOs pre-revenue. This applies both to MOBILE now until Helium Mobile launches, and also to potential future subDAOs. As we look at this, I suggest it’s worth bearing in mind that a small reduction in the emissions to a dominant subDAO can provide a large increase in the emissions to a pre-revenue subDAO. That might be seen as a principle of solidarity. To the extent that the Helium Flywheel benefits from a plurality of subDAOs, it could be in the interests of all. As we look at the last point, we might return to the ideological side of things. Many societies consider a principle of solidarity to be useful. It’s the basis of progressive taxation and trade unions, for example. But opinions differ, and I’d be grateful to everybody if we could try to separate the ideological point of view from the pragmatic point of view as much as possible. (Yes, that’s difficult.) Otherwise, as we’ve seen, discussions get extremely difficult to follow.
appreciate the thought but the conclusion I am coming to is to bring this to vote and it either passes or it doesn't we then need to get onboarding fees to gateways ASAP to avoid a disaster
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
appreciate the thought but the conclusion I am coming to is to bring this to vote and it either passes or it doesn't we then need to get onboarding fees to gateways ASAP to avoid a disaster
I support you in this. 😄 Note that if we pass HIP-80 – which gives a concession to IOT through the “40” Floor for 4 years to protect IOT in possible scenarios involving a very successful MOBILE subDAO - then we also give MOBILE the concession that past and future onboarding fees become irrelevant for the Utility Score, and
👍 1
👎 1
06:28
06:29
Also note that this brings all 10,000 MOBILE Hotspots into compliance, or at least the 9,774 FreedomFi and the 411 Bobcat 5G Hotspots that have been onboarded through the legacy IOT onboarding procedure according to https://explorer.helium.com/iot/makers.
06:30
not just the 3,881 MOBILE Hotspots that earned MOBILE yesterday according to waveform’s post above.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
appreciate the thought but the conclusion I am coming to is to bring this to vote and it either passes or it doesn't we then need to get onboarding fees to gateways ASAP to avoid a disaster
Agreed
Avatar
I honestly haven’t been following MOBILE PoC, but I presume that still only the MOBILE Hotspots that have radios attached will earn any MOBILE. And the HNT emitted to the MOBILE subDAO prior to MOBILE revenue from Helium Mobile will just be the 14.9% in the top HIP-80 line in my “pink model”, multiplied by the V factor of veHNT delegation compared to IOT. As expected.
06:34
So IOT will still be getting 85%. Modulo veHNT. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I honestly haven’t been following MOBILE PoC, but I presume that still only the MOBILE Hotspots that have radios attached will earn any MOBILE. And the HNT emitted to the MOBILE subDAO prior to MOBILE revenue from Helium Mobile will just be the 14.9% in the top HIP-80 line in my “pink model”, multiplied by the V factor of veHNT delegation compared to IOT. As expected.
well because of how things are now with no POC being applied lots of people just grouped them together to save time, but when people actaully have to start going and deploying that number will likely double I myself have around 25 just sitting in a box and 10 installed just with no radios
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
well because of how things are now with no POC being applied lots of people just grouped them together to save time, but when people actaully have to start going and deploying that number will likely double I myself have around 25 just sitting in a box and 10 installed just with no radios
I applaud that you have equipment ready for deployment. When PoC changes and you deploy it, that will change the distribution of MOBILE PoC rewards. Under HIP-80, it won’t change the amount of HNT emitted towards MOBILE. Once Helium Mobile comes online, it will improve the amount of Data Transfer, and therefore DC Burn, and that in turn will increase the share of HNT emitted to the MOBILE treasury. Which is why it’s important that MOBILE PoC be improved to motivate radio installation now, so that Data Transfer will be improved later. All working as designed. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
This is precisely what I am talking about it is known as the "free surface effect"
As for this, and Brainstormer’s comment that “most will delegate to IoT because IoT will have most of the emissions”, I wonder if that is too simplistic a view. Note that if nobody is delegating towards MOBILE, and I delegate towards MOBILE, I will get almost all of the 6% of MOBILE emissions earmarked for delegation rewards, which is a huge amount of MOBILE under the current emission schedule. If I intended to sell the MOBILE into HNT now through the MOBILE treasury, I would not get much HNT. But if I speculate that MOBILE will become successful within the next year or two, and will then get a much greater share of HNT emissions, the treasury floor price will rise, and then my very large share of MOBILE emissions will be worth much more in HNT terms. This provides an incentive to delegate towards a subDAO that has low current earnings but potentially higher future earnings.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
As for this, and Brainstormer’s comment that “most will delegate to IoT because IoT will have most of the emissions”, I wonder if that is too simplistic a view. Note that if nobody is delegating towards MOBILE, and I delegate towards MOBILE, I will get almost all of the 6% of MOBILE emissions earmarked for delegation rewards, which is a huge amount of MOBILE under the current emission schedule. If I intended to sell the MOBILE into HNT now through the MOBILE treasury, I would not get much HNT. But if I speculate that MOBILE will become successful within the next year or two, and will then get a much greater share of HNT emissions, the treasury floor price will rise, and then my very large share of MOBILE emissions will be worth much more in HNT terms. This provides an incentive to delegate towards a subDAO that has low current earnings but potentially higher future earnings.
I just view it as a market force, I realize 6% slice isn't probable going to be worth it so most people are investing long term but with such little loss for switching its not impossible that it could push either subDAO score dangerously low
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I just view it as a market force, I realize 6% slice isn't probable going to be worth it so most people are investing long term but with such little loss for switching its not impossible that it could push either subDAO score dangerously low
I think the square root helps with that, because if the V factor of subDAO X is much smaller than the V of subDAO Y, then shifting delegation from subDAO Y to subDAO X increases the Score of X much more than it reduces the Score of Y.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think the square root helps with that, because if the V factor of subDAO X is much smaller than the V of subDAO Y, then shifting delegation from subDAO Y to subDAO X increases the Score of X much more than it reduces the Score of Y.
it defiantly does, yes that's one of the main reason I supported the idea and the tweaking we did I believe is the best compromise
👍 1
Avatar
One thing I’m still trying to get my heard around is what happens to the 3rd+ Network to join Helium? If it is a slow start or inherently lower burning network (say a BLE Network for example) will that network be given comparable footing to the current IOT Network? On the other hand what if it is a High burn quick starting Network like a general purpose WiFi Network, will it be treated on the same footing as Mobile? Broader question: is the distribution intended to foster fledgling Networks, or entice only the more mature Networks?
07:28
Do we prioritize exclusively DC burn, or Network(s) growth/utility?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
One thing I’m still trying to get my heard around is what happens to the 3rd+ Network to join Helium? If it is a slow start or inherently lower burning network (say a BLE Network for example) will that network be given comparable footing to the current IOT Network? On the other hand what if it is a High burn quick starting Network like a general purpose WiFi Network, will it be treated on the same footing as Mobile? Broader question: is the distribution intended to foster fledgling Networks, or entice only the more mature Networks?
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:02 AM
The V score was supposed to be the community’s way of dictating that
❌ 1
08:04
Why is that an X. That was actually its intent
08:05
That’s why it is weighted the way it is, so ultimately the community decides which subDAOs are best
08:05
You were around for HIP-51, how do you not know these things?
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:06 AM
V is a useless cash grab. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:06 AM
Yea but you hate staking. I do too but at least be kinda objective
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea but you hate staking. I do too but at least be kinda objective
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:07 AM
I do? No... I hate the rich getting to siphon off money without having to actually build the network.
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
One thing I’m still trying to get my heard around is what happens to the 3rd+ Network to join Helium? If it is a slow start or inherently lower burning network (say a BLE Network for example) will that network be given comparable footing to the current IOT Network? On the other hand what if it is a High burn quick starting Network like a general purpose WiFi Network, will it be treated on the same footing as Mobile? Broader question: is the distribution intended to foster fledgling Networks, or entice only the more mature Networks?
I like the floor 7 approach as well in my modeling it gives a basis for UBI to those networks incentivizing them to join where as in hip 51 it would only attract certain types of networks, I think of it as a grant and only networks that can convince helium that it is a mutually beneficial relationship will get a grant simple system. IMO
👆🏼 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
One thing I’m still trying to get my heard around is what happens to the 3rd+ Network to join Helium? If it is a slow start or inherently lower burning network (say a BLE Network for example) will that network be given comparable footing to the current IOT Network? On the other hand what if it is a High burn quick starting Network like a general purpose WiFi Network, will it be treated on the same footing as Mobile? Broader question: is the distribution intended to foster fledgling Networks, or entice only the more mature Networks?
The “7” Floor was put there with an immediate view towards assigning some emissions to MOBILE at launch pre-revenue. Similarly, IOT is pre-revenue (almost) and is protected by “40”. This is how we get the first HIP-80 line in the “pink model”. D factor for IOT is 40, D factor for MOBILE is 7, MOBILE’s share of emissions (pre-veHNT) is 7/46 = 15%. (40 corresponds to an implicit hypothetical monthly burn of $48,000, 7 to $1,470.) If a new subDAO joins later, then pre-revenue its share of emissions would be very small without the Floor. Perhaps we have MOBILE revenue of $1M, then D of MOBILE would be 1,000. Due to the Floor of 7, the new pre-revenue subDAO would receive a share of 0.7% of emissions, rather than almost none.) If a new subDAO joins sooner, its share would be larger. This mechanism addresses the question of how to provide an attractive proposition to new projects contemplating joining Helium. The square root in V also provides an easier entry in that respect.
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
I do? No... I hate the rich getting to siphon off money without having to actually build the network.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:10 AM
Buying and staking HNT helps the network.
08:11
The real answer is this HIP closes Helium off from the ability to grow beyond the first two networks. Such a shame too, the network of networks was such a cool idea.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The real answer is this HIP closes Helium off from the ability to grow beyond the first two networks. Such a shame too, the network of networks was such a cool idea.
whats the evidence of that?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Buying and staking HNT helps the network.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:13 AM
It only helps those people increase the dao share of the hnt pool for them to extract. If they want to actually support that dao, install hardware.
👍 1
💯 1
🔥 1
🚀 1
08:13
A, not V
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
It only helps those people increase the dao share of the hnt pool for them to extract. If they want to actually support that dao, install hardware.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:14 AM
Someone needs to buy the tokens that get emitted to entice to people buy the hardware
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Someone needs to buy the tokens that get emitted to entice to people buy the hardware
scarcity of something that has no value still has no value
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Someone needs to buy the tokens that get emitted to entice to people buy the hardware
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:15 AM
They already can buy tokens. You don't then also give them the ability to make up their own salary.
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 04/07/2023 8:15 AM
No discussions on buying or selling HNT please!
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:15 AM
Turtle soup
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 04/07/2023 8:15 AM
No soup for you!
😆 2
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Turtle soup
the back scroll is fierce enough 😉
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
scarcity of something that has no value still has no value
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:16 AM
You’re arguing against the flywheel effect
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
the back scroll is fierce enough 😉
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:16 AM
Sorry 😁
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:16 AM
Do you just like to hear yourself talk?
🤨 1
08:16
Nevermind.
08:16
That was mean (edited)
💯 1
08:16
And we know the answer
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Do you just like to hear yourself talk?
ad hominem
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:19 AM
You railroad discussions with nonsense theoretical scenarios when the exact opposite has often happened within the past 2-3 years
🤨 1
08:19
I appreciate you wanting to participate but you are out of your depth a lot of the time
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You railroad discussions with nonsense theoretical scenarios when the exact opposite has often happened within the past 2-3 years
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:21 AM
Helps if we know who you're talking to here. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:21 AM
Not you
Avatar
I have been building businesses all my life and usually multiple at a time my specialty has been resource management for maximum growth. so forgive me when my reaction to the current problem is I can do that
🫂 2
08:22
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:23 AM
You also said you’re on the nova labs cap table
08:25
I’m sure you’re a nice guy but you keep trying to make it impossible to let the helium network scale
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:27 AM
Let's get back to technical details, yeah? 🙂
08:27
Set V on fire. 😉 🔥
08:27
A should not be removed.
08:29
Putting non dynamic floor numbers is too rigid, and the protection effect is speculative at best.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:30 AM
I’m not against making HIP-51 better, it’s certainly not perfect. Just can’t fix it with floor numbers because they don’t scale and don’t allow for new networks to easily join
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Set V on fire. 😉 🔥
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:31 AM
You’re going to have to talk about that in the other channel. The HIP author has designated this as a safe space where only positive things can be said about the HIP
😆 1
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:32 AM
Applying a 4th root to V would lessen its impact on the overall score, right?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You’re going to have to talk about that in the other channel. The HIP author has designated this as a safe space where only positive things can be said about the HIP
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:32 AM
Sorry, I didn't join the military for a reason. Not good at taking orders. 😉
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:33 AM
Zuckerberg doesn’t order you around?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Zuckerberg doesn’t order you around?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:33 AM
Zuck can kiss my 🍑. Lol
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Zuckerberg doesn’t order you around?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:34 AM
And no, not really. This far down we operate fairly independently. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Applying a 4th root to V would lessen its impact on the overall score, right?
correct but one thing is we have no idea how big the v number might be so applying 4th root might be to aggressive but in hip 51 there is no modifier
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:35 AM
You know when we’ll know how big it can be?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
correct but one thing is we have no idea how big the v number might be so applying 4th root might be to aggressive but in hip 51 there is no modifier
happy mid point is a single sqrt IMO
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:35 AM
In 3 weeks
08:35
Then we don’t have to make assumptions
08:35
We’ll know
08:35
We’ll likely hit max veHNT stake numbers on April 28
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
correct but one thing is we have no idea how big the v number might be so applying 4th root might be to aggressive but in hip 51 there is no modifier
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:36 AM
The size of future V doesn't matter. It's about blunting the impact of V to the overall score. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We’ll know
I view that as a very shady business practice invest then we will tell you how much its worth...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:36 AM
How is that shady? The decision is being made by the stakers
08:36
And they get a 3x premium for acting during the time of uncertainty
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I view that as a very shady business practice invest then we will tell you how much its worth...
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:37 AM
It doesn't affect their cut of the 6%... 🤷‍♂️ (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:37 AM
And it’s well known this could happen
08:38
Also most people aren’t staking because of the effect it has on dao Utility score
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I view that as a very shady business practice invest then we will tell you how much its worth...
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:38 AM
It would only affect their attempt to influence the amount the dao gets in their Treasury (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
How is that shady? The decision is being made by the stakers
I can almost guarantee that a significant portion of stake's would view it as a rug changes after the fact are best avoided, I lost a good friend and investor because of something similar that in reality could have been protected against
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I can almost guarantee that a significant portion of stake's would view it as a rug changes after the fact are best avoided, I lost a good friend and investor because of something similar that in reality could have been protected against
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:40 AM
What rug? They still have the same cut of the 6%, and the same amount of tokens locked. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
It doesn't affect their cut of the 6%... 🤷‍♂️ (edited)
this is true, but I feel like that will not be the main incentive and as max stated above we want to give every reason to stake as it removes HNT from the supply
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:41 AM
People stake to get rewards. No none votes when it’s free
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
It would only affect their attempt to influence the amount the dao gets in their Treasury (edited)
correct that influence is IMO tangible
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:41 AM
It’s also an objectively bad deal as you get less back than your liquidity premium is worth (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
this is true, but I feel like that will not be the main incentive and as max stated above we want to give every reason to stake as it removes HNT from the supply
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:43 AM
If it's not the reason they are staking, then they are trying to work the system, so f them.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
correct that influence is IMO tangible
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:43 AM
If they want more in the Treasury, install hardware and move some data.
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
If it's not the reason they are staking, then they are trying to work the system, so f them.
I also view it as a signal it would give some indication of market sentiment
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I also view it as a signal it would give some indication of market sentiment
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:44 AM
They can do that by building. We don't need leeches.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:45 AM
Ugh, Elon. Come on
❔ 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I also view it as a signal it would give some indication of market sentiment
They can buy mobile to do that right ?
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 04/07/2023 8:45 AM
No discussions on buying or selling MOBILE please!
🖕 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
They can do that by building. We don't need leeches.
to be fair not everyone can deploy MOBILE at this time I also
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:46 AM
The stakers are getting fucked and you view them as getting too good of a deal
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
They can buy mobile to do that right ?
true but what value does that add, I would rather have them reach and build the faster the "American" model proves its self the faster it will reach other countries
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
to be fair not everyone can deploy MOBILE at this time I also
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:46 AM
But they have money to stake? Sorry, I don't buy it.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The stakers are getting fucked and you view them as getting too good of a deal
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:47 AM
How so?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:47 AM
Staking is objectively a bad deal for stakers unless they get coins at a discount with some contractual lock up period so they can double dip on that
08:47
You’re better off buying treasury bonds
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You’re better off buying treasury bonds
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:48 AM
Tell that to SVB 😉
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:48 AM
I’m down way more on my staked HNT than they are on their bonds
🫂 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Staking is objectively a bad deal for stakers unless they get coins at a discount with some contractual lock up period so they can double dip on that
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:49 AM
They get increased voting power and a cut of the Treasury. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
They get increased voting power and a cut of the Treasury. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:54 AM
Yes but if HNT staking is any indication, less than that lockup is worth
08:54
There are simply better ways to lock up your money
08:55
Going on too much a tangent though here.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There are simply better ways to lock up your money
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:56 AM
Well sure. This isn't supposed to be some free cash grab. They should be using that money to install/use a network. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Going on too much a tangent though here.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:56 AM
Fair. 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 8:57 AM
Everyone plays a role in the flywheel. People put money in at different points and the miner has the ability exceed the amount of HNT they’d get by simply buying
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Everyone plays a role in the flywheel. People put money in at different points and the miner has the ability exceed the amount of HNT they’d get by simply buying
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 8:58 AM
Then just buy. No need to give them a double dip.
Avatar
Bringing this conversation back to the big picture. The main concern with the current model is that 51 as is will result in Mobile getting very little HNT out of the gate due to an A score of 1, right? For the most part, people are in agreement that this isn’t ideal, and while most also agree that while HIP 80 will increase Mobile’s share, some people think it’s too drastic a change to introduce right now and could have numerous unintended negative consequences. Is all of that fair to say?
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Bringing this conversation back to the big picture. The main concern with the current model is that 51 as is will result in Mobile getting very little HNT out of the gate due to an A score of 1, right? For the most part, people are in agreement that this isn’t ideal, and while most also agree that while HIP 80 will increase Mobile’s share, some people think it’s too drastic a change to introduce right now and could have numerous unintended negative consequences. Is all of that fair to say?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:02 AM
Out of the gate, yes. Once they start passing data, IOT gets blown out of the water. Plus V has a very outsized effect.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Then just buy. No need to give them a double dip.
TBH I am with agreement with Max that there needs to be "pressure" and staking almost always implies risk, and you deserve something for that risk but I will say your 4th root idea has merit, but I also think it is way easier to go from SQRT -> SQRT4 if it becomes a problem than leave 51 as is then if $hit hits the fan it could cause a trust failure/ run on the bank as it were (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Bringing this conversation back to the big picture. The main concern with the current model is that 51 as is will result in Mobile getting very little HNT out of the gate due to an A score of 1, right? For the most part, people are in agreement that this isn’t ideal, and while most also agree that while HIP 80 will increase Mobile’s share, some people think it’s too drastic a change to introduce right now and could have numerous unintended negative consequences. Is all of that fair to say?
both the A and D would be 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
both the A and D would be 1
But D would start to ramp relatively soon while currently there’s no plan for A to ever go above 1, right? At least with the current lack of onboarding? (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
untill the e-sims get brouhgt back and even then its hard to say will they be stable enough to sell in high volumes will we have sigifcant outages until Helium Mobile launches 🤞 in May? (edited)
09:07
thats most likely 6 weeks away
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
untill the e-sims get brouhgt back and even then its hard to say will they be stable enough to sell in high volumes will we have sigifcant outages until Helium Mobile launches 🤞 in May? (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:08 AM
Given Nova's track record of meeting deadlines, I'd guess maybe June. 😉
09:08
maybe
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
TBH I am with agreement with Max that there needs to be "pressure" and staking almost always implies risk, and you deserve something for that risk but I will say your 4th root idea has merit, but I also think it is way easier to go from SQRT -> SQRT4 if it becomes a problem than leave 51 as is then if $hit hits the fan it could cause a trust failure/ run on the bank as it were (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:11 AM
I'd want to see a calc of sqrt vs sqrt4 to compare the effects, but I could get behind that. 🙂
Avatar
4th root of V would mean it’s more effective to just burn than stake.
🤘 1
09:14
Cheaper too
Avatar
In an ideal world, I think everyone agrees it’d be great to have an improved subdao formula that improves the fairness of IOT/Mobile balance and also accounts/encourages for new subdaos down the road. But again, it just seems like this is too ambitious a change to get solved last minute before the transition. So I would argue, the one productive thing we should be focusing on right now is any potential change that 1) is super simple, and 2) addresses the most critical short term problems with the current implementation. My understanding is the biggest short term problem is Mobile being under rewarded due to no onboarding. Is it possible for us just to focus on this with a solution that gives it a small bump come 4/18?
09:28
And then once 4/18 is behind us, we can start focusing on a permanent solution that revamps the entire subdao forumla?
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
And then once 4/18 is behind us, we can start focusing on a permanent solution that revamps the entire subdao forumla?
The simple solution is pay the onboard fees
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The simple solution is pay the onboard fees
So if that’s all we changed right now, what’s the biggest concern with that over say the next 6 months?
Avatar
Do you'all not have short term memory. The comparisons of transformation options on V was presented last night. If your goal is to attenuate the effect of too many people delegating to one subDAO over a specific other subDAO, you are putting at risk exactly what you are trying to achieve. If most of the veHNT is delegated to IoT, then you will be attenuating the effect that gives you; that is a fail. If you wish to wait until the land-rush period is over and then apply the transformation to get what you want that will work. However, it will be super easy and free for folks to change to which subDAO their position is delegated; that will lead to a fail. Here are the models to clearly support this argument: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093790257339695154 (edited)
09:38
If you want to protect IoT, you do not want to change the V factor.
09:39
The easiest and clearest mechanism to protect IoT is either HIP80's floor scheme or to modify the A factor to count onboarding fees from all-time rather than just the current epoch.
09:43
I believe that HIP80's floor scheme will be a mistake as it will protect IoT for a fixed, but arbitrary, amount of time rather than simply giving it some extra runway to succeed.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
4th root of V would mean it’s more effective to just burn than stake.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:46 AM
Sounds good to me.
Avatar
The 4th root of V would mean that if most folks delegate to IoT, you will give more to Mobile as a result. Seems rather counterproductive to the stated goal of protecting IoT. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You also said you’re on the nova labs cap table
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 9:47 AM
what is the nova labs cap table?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
The 4th root of V would mean that if most folks delegate to IoT, you will give more to Mobile as a result. Seems rather counterproductive to the stated goal of protecting IoT. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:48 AM
V does not exist in a vacuum
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The simple solution is pay the onboard fees
As soon as @Max - Just Max gets off the phone with Nova and then calls the Foundation, we will find out for real if they will or will not subsidize the retroactive onboarding fees.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
The 4th root of V would mean that if most folks delegate to IoT, you will give more to Mobile as a result. Seems rather counterproductive to the stated goal of protecting IoT. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:49 AM
4th root removes V as a controlling factor.
Avatar
Whatever. Giving more to Mobile is fine with me.
09:51
It attenuates the effect of the V factor. That is what it does. If folks delegate to IoT, that is not what you want done to the effect of the V factor.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Whatever. Giving more to Mobile is fine with me.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:52 AM
Sorry, not seeing how that gives mobile more. IOT still beats mobile on D and A.
Avatar
If you just want to attenuate the V factor, then yes some transformation works nicely. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
If you just want to attenuate the V factor, then yes some transformation works nicely. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:53 AM
If I had my way, V would go away completely. 😉
Avatar
Since the Utility Score is a product of three factors, attenuating the effect of any one of the factors has the effect of giving less to the group (thus more to the other groups) that got the most of that factor.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
If I had my way, V would go away completely. 😉
I don't think you are going to win that battle.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I don't think you are going to win that battle.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:55 AM
I know. Lol
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Since the Utility Score is a product of three factors, attenuating the effect of any one of the factors has the effect of giving less to the group (thus more to the other groups) that got the most of that factor.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 9:56 AM
Wait? No... You're lowering the effect of that factor on the whole dao score.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 10:01 AM
listen to the zoom meeting going on now, they're talking about the onboarding fees
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
listen to the zoom meeting going on now, they're talking about the onboarding fees
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:03 AM
What meeting?
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 10:03 AM
Welcome! You are invited to join a meeting: Helium x Solana Migration Office Hours. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/07/2023 10:06 AM
probably because its only one hour and it's over time
10:07
i just jumped in not long ago
Avatar
@Brainstormer too late lol
Avatar
I was there pretty much the whole time
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
huh... doesn't show today's date.
It did before.
10:09
Now it’s showing next meeting probably
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
@Brainstormer too late lol
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:09 AM
Ah ok, that's why it's having an issue. 🙂
Avatar
they were recording the meeting so should be able to listen too
🤘 2
Avatar
ya we'll publish a recording - its hip 80 related but yall are having the better convo
❤️ 1
10:16
so after reading the 600+ messages since I went to bed lol, let's do a temp check on this just to have some points of clear consensus or not on moving forward.
👍 1
Avatar
We need an AI bot to do messaging temp checks. I don't see how we're living without it.
🤘 1
Avatar
🚨 @here TEMPERATURE CHECK Are we ready to take this to a vote? Vote with an emoji reaction below: 👍 Yes, Ready to go to a vote 👎 No, Not ready to go to a vote 🤔 Yes, but have more questions. "No" in this case also means you want to discuss the alternative - the alternative is solve for mobile onboarding fees, as well as continue to make changes to HIP 80. (edited)
👎 63
👍 49
Avatar
Avatar
gristleking
We need an AI bot to do messaging temp checks. I don't see how we're living without it.
I am the AI bot lol. but yes one day.
🤖 2
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:21 AM
Voting on a a vote?
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
Voting on a a vote?
just a temp check
🌡️ 2
😡 1
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:22 AM
Can we have a vote first to see if we are ready for the temp check?
😂 5
😑 1
Avatar
💯 Not A Bot 💯 04/07/2023 10:22 AM
I second this
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
Can we have a vote first to see if we are ready for the temp check?
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:22 AM
We did, a few days ago, it was determined back then it wasn't ready for a temp check
Avatar
we're getting too close to april 18th, its now or never
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We did, a few days ago, it was determined back then it wasn't ready for a temp check
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:23 AM
I was not informed
10:23
It's a double holiday today...
10:23
Some people may be occupied
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:23 AM
Would be nice if the smaller scope onboard HIP was an option for the community to discuss
Avatar
im looking for the "maybe".
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:24 AM
is this like a simple majority temp check or if those working on the hip are pretty split on its readiness does that mean no?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Would be nice if the smaller scope onboard HIP was an option for the community to discuss
vote no. No says "we want other options" and then comment that. we're doing fine
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
Can we have a vote first to see if we are ready for the temp check?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:26 AM
"This temp check could have been an email". lol
✉️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
is this like a simple majority temp check or if those working on the hip are pretty split on its readiness does that mean no?
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:26 AM
This isn't the senate
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
is this like a simple majority temp check or if those working on the hip are pretty split on its readiness does that mean no?
simple majority temp, we need some clear data. i know the voices in here are still very split.
👍 1
Avatar
Voting no without knowing there is an alternative has different implications than voting no while knowing there is an alternative.
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
It's a double holiday today...
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:26 AM
Oh! right... I forgot. Good point. 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:27 AM
Doesn't split mean there isn't rough consensus amongst the contributors so therefor its not ready to for rough consensus amongst the community at large
Avatar
i edited the message.
Avatar
I'm voting yes with the assumption that both proposals (just give mobile an onboarding fee) is also brought in.
👍 1
Avatar
max we gotta move this to a vote like no later than monday
10:28
or decide something needs to move to a vote
Avatar
is there any reason why that HIP draft doesn't get into "in discussion"
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
This isn't the senate
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:28 AM
Thank god for that. We'd never get anything done. 😉
facepalm 1
Avatar
Avatar
valerie
max we gotta move this to a vote like no later than monday
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:28 AM
So then why have a temp check, just rush it through then
Avatar
give me 10 minutes and we'll get it up 🙂
👍 1
😬 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:28 AM
can we tack a piece that I get 5,000 HNT?
😆 1
🇳 1
🇴 1
Avatar
@Max - Just Max no.
👍 1
Avatar
no lol
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
I'm voting yes with the assumption that both proposals (just give mobile an onboarding fee) is also brought in.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:29 AM
Hey @gutentag. Your favorite word... lol 😉
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
can we tack a piece that I get 5,000 HNT?
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:29 AM
I second the motion and would like to add an amendment that I also get 5000 hnt
😄 1
🇳 1
🇴 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:29 AM
Well we tacked on the removal of the A score to the onboard HIP so I figured we could just tack on whatever
Avatar
oh no. "assumption" is bad now?
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
oh no. "assumption" is bad now?
I assume so
😄 3
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
oh no. "assumption" is bad now?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:30 AM
He wanted a Carl response to it. lol
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I assume so
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:31 AM
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
I second the motion and would like to add an amendment that I also get 5000 hnt
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:32 AM
Vetoed 😉
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:33 AM
I motion to silence senator Tusk
🤣 2
10:34
Please let the chair note the objection
Avatar
Granted.
Avatar
I think my preferred path in the short term is to look into adding a mobile onboard fee now, address the utility score revamp after the migration. So I voted no? Not sure if that was the correct vote for my position or not.
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:34 AM
The British parliament is so much better
☝️ 2
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:35 AM
In Korea they fight sometimes 😂
😆 2
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
The British parliament is so much better
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:35 AM
"congress with a 2 drink minimum" -Eddie Izzard 😄
🤣 2
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
can we tack a piece that I get 5,000 HNT?
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 10:35 AM
If you are that desperate for income, you know there are options 😂
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I think my preferred path in the short term is to look into adding a mobile onboard fee now, address the utility score revamp after the migration. So I voted no? Not sure if that was the correct vote for my position or not.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:36 AM
I think that's correct then.
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
If you are that desperate for income, you know there are options 😂
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:37 AM
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
If you are that desperate for income, you know there are options 😂
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:37 AM
I posted a gig... No one responded...
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/07/2023 10:37 AM
I voted twice
10:37
Yes and no
🤣 2
😄 1
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:37 AM
Might be something max would actually want to hit me up about
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Yes and no
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:37 AM
Go for the trifecta!
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
I posted a gig... No one responded...
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 10:37 AM
What gig? On OF? 😂
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Yes and no
Diluting votes are we?
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I voted twice
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:38 AM
Damn Dominion!
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Yes and no
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 10:38 AM
You should do the 🤔
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
What gig? On OF? 😂
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:38 AM
#gigs-and-bounties
10:39
Sourcing consultation for Chinese manufacturing
👍 1
Keenan pinned a message to this channel. 04/07/2023 10:39 AM
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:39 AM
I don’t know any manufacturers in china
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:39 AM
Huh?
10:40
You didn't source direct for your antennas?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:40 AM
Not from China.
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:40 AM
Well anyway this is getting into the off topic
👍 1
10:42
I'll be in china at the biggest trade show in the world in 10 days so if anyone needs any sourcing done and/or other related services I'll be available
😮 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro)
I'll be in china at the biggest trade show in the world in 10 days so if anyone needs any sourcing done and/or other related services I'll be available
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:42 AM
Cool. Stay safe! 🙂
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:42 AM
It's my job. And I'm very good at it
🤘 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
I'm voting yes with the assumption that both proposals (just give mobile an onboarding fee) is also brought in.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:42 AM
I think the updated text says a yes vote does the opposite though
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Cool. Stay safe! 🙂
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:43 AM
No promises
😅 1
Avatar
alright hip 81 is open - which is an alternative to hip 80
Avatar
What is the appropriate form of telling others to vote 'no' on this HIP? I know some folks were upset with Max when he went to Twitter to protest a previous HIP.
Avatar
people are always upset with Max 🤭
🤣 3
Avatar
And do I need to write a single issue HIP regarding slightly changing the A factor? Or does someone already have that in process?
Avatar
i think here or any platform that you have is fine to tell people no. this is always a space to express opinions, just don't become a broken record or break any community rules
Avatar
And do I need to write a single issue HIP named "STFU & Pay your Onboarding Fees" for Mobile? Or does someone have that in process already?
😆 2
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
And do I need to write a single issue HIP named "STFU & Pay your Onboarding Fees" for Mobile? Or does someone have that in process already?
Not being rewarded anymore as specified in HIP81 isn't enough of a please pay your onboarding?
Avatar
Hexin'Fresh-Yagi-Yagi(NotTaxPro) 04/07/2023 10:50 AM
Unlimited HIP campaign financing will ruin the system
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
people are always upset with Max 🤭
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:50 AM
Weird I’m so congenial
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Not being rewarded anymore as specified in HIP81 isn't enough of a please pay your onboarding?
I hadn't read it yet. Good to hear it is done.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:53 AM
At least we don’t do our temp checks on twitter. Pollen’s minimum uptime requirement was particularly unpopular amongst robots in Russia
😬 3
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I hadn't read it yet. Good to hear it is done.
#hip-81-minimum-onboarding-fee valerie just opened a channel.
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
If you are that desperate for income, you know there are options 😂
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 10:53 AM
Worst case they say no
Avatar
"The IOT subDAO receives an explicit guarding factor to ensure its continued funding" Why is the IoT platform given a protected status? 1st child syndrome?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Worst case they say no
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 10:54 AM
Downtown corners can say no? 😉
10:54
wait.. it was Dumpling. She never tells jokes that dirty. lol
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
And do I need to write a single issue HIP regarding slightly changing the A factor? Or does someone already have that in process?
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 10:56 AM
You are free to write HIPs, no one is saying you can't do that.
Avatar
on the other hand, if the MOBILE subDAO is successful, it is expected to burn a large volume of DC per Hotspot in the medium term, as it is providing network coverage for a device class (smartphones) that is already ubiquitous and consumes large amounts of bandwidth. The IOT subDAO is expected to follow a slower growth path, as it is providing coverage for entirely new applications that are still being developed and are expected to be rolled out in the next several years as technology matures. Okay so it is 1st child syndrome.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
on the other hand, if the MOBILE subDAO is successful, it is expected to burn a large volume of DC per Hotspot in the medium term, as it is providing network coverage for a device class (smartphones) that is already ubiquitous and consumes large amounts of bandwidth. The IOT subDAO is expected to follow a slower growth path, as it is providing coverage for entirely new applications that are still being developed and are expected to be rolled out in the next several years as technology matures. Okay so it is 1st child syndrome.
GSwiss | Suiswap 04/07/2023 11:02 AM
5g is US only. Outside US helium is an iot project
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
GSwiss | Suiswap
5g is US only. Outside US helium is an iot project
For now, there are plenty of other networks that will be international
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
For now, there are plenty of other networks that will be international
like what. eu doesnt have cbrs bands. and the lte spectrum is licenced by huge telcos that arnt gonna let it go
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
like what. eu doesnt have cbrs bands. and the lte spectrum is licenced by huge telcos that arnt gonna let it go
Wifi just off the top of my head.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Wifi just off the top of my head.
wifi is a whole other minefield but thats not lte/5g and doesnt offer those kind of ranges that those networks cover . if wifi comes it comes to us all the rest of the world will still lack the mobile service that the states has
Avatar
I'd bet WiFi will offload more data than CBRS will, but that's for another conversation
💯 1
11:11
It will likely be the most valuable of all the networks down the road
👍 1
Avatar
depends on rollout many public places offer free wifi now why would people make a move to helium a paid for service when they can get it for free
Avatar
What does the comma mean in this equation? Is it a Or statement?
11:21
I've seen it used in other HIPs as well
11:24
I think it is a ORstatement (edited)
Avatar
if sqrt(veHNT) > 1 then sqrt(veHNT) else 1.
👍 2
Avatar
It looks like the Helium community will be giving a 48,000 dollar a month DC Credit participation trophy to the IoT network with this HIP. This seems insane to me, but I see why it's being done.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
It looks like the Helium community will be giving a 48,000 dollar a month DC Credit participation trophy to the IoT network with this HIP. This seems insane to me, but I see why it's being done.
The alternative is HIP81 where MOBILE pays their onboarding fee and continues with the formula agreed upon in HIP51.
👆 1
Avatar
I like that way better
11:31
This way is not elegant. (edited)
11:31
I see the conundrum you all are facing here lol.
🤝 1
11:32
Also, thanks to the writers of this HIP. It's easy to understand and concise, something all HIPs should aspire to be.
11:37
The conundrum is that after HIP53 passes and we move to the SubDAO model, IoT rewards are going to tank because it doesn't hold as much "promise" as the MOBILE network and more HNT emissions will feed into that network. That will upset people who bought over-priced Hotspots, who will scream at the top of their lungs and then the media will then blow everything out of proportion with clickbait articles. If there's a way to craft an off-ramp for us moving into this framework without the above issue, I'm all for it. I assume why the 48,000 participation trophy exists and that's a valid reason.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
What does the comma mean in this equation? Is it a Or statement?
it means either 1 or the other number its so that a 0 doesn't 0 out the whole equation
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
It looks like the Helium community will be giving a 48,000 dollar a month DC Credit participation trophy to the IoT network with this HIP. This seems insane to me, but I see why it's being done.
the ratio is 40/7 and 7 for all new subDAO's
11:39
this also falls away after the 2nd halfing
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 11:40 AM
I thought 75:1 was the perfect ratio
11:40
How are we sure this new one is good?
Avatar
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
this also falls away after the 2nd halfing
HIP says 4th halving.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
this also falls away after the 2nd halfing
4 years is a long time for a participation trophy
11:41
But hopefully by then the IoT network will be generating more than 48K in DC burn
Avatar
Avatar
groot
HIP says 4th halving.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 11:42 AM
His 2nd halving.
11:42
Which is actually his third halving
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
His 2nd halving.
Max, you seem to be HIP 81, right?
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
But hopefully by then the IoT network will be generating more than 48K in DC burn
thats the goal but its funny there are people voting differently for the same reasons
Avatar
in favor^
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Max, you seem to be HIP 81, right?
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 11:42 AM
Well I wrote it so yes
Avatar
Oh did you? I should have check my bad. Why do you like that one over this one?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 11:43 AM
The crux of 81 was there is an issue that needs to be solved - mobile onboards. 81 requires subDAOs to pay an onboarding fee for any device that earns and doesn’t change anything else.
11:44
Basically this HIP is too large and has too many secondary and tertiary effects that haven’t been dealt with to pass in the timeline of the migration (edited)
👍 1
11:45
A bunch of arbitrary numbers started getting added to get to the perceived right answer due to the time crunch which makes the network of networks concept really difficult to scale
Avatar
I agree with you on the other hand it seems like this issue may be a pressing matter.
11:50
It needs to be solved before HIP51 goes into effect.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 11:50 AM
81 solves the issue without all the added stuff
11:51
It just solves the issue creating a requirement
11:51
No engineering work needed
Avatar
It's quite difficult to see through the tea leaves on this one without building models I'm afraid. On one hand this HIP creates base floors in the DAO utility Score, the other requires 4th roots........
11:57
JMF helped to write HIP51 and dealt directly with this issue, he's an author of HIP80. I tend to defer to his judgement TBH.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
It's quite difficult to see through the tea leaves on this one without building models I'm afraid. On one hand this HIP creates base floors in the DAO utility Score, the other requires 4th roots........
Sheet1 Emission to miners (HNT),55,890 subDAO Network Data Transfer and Device Count in Epoch X LoRaWAN DC burned (in USD),$500.00,5G DC burned (in USD),$708.33,WiFi DC burned (in USD),$1.00,resevered pie,25%,10%,resevered pie,25%,10% LoRaWAN Devices (#),460,000,5G Devices,3,700,WiFi Devices,1 U...
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
JMF helped to write HIP51 and dealt directly with this issue, he's an author of HIP80. I tend to defer to his judgement TBH.
JMF authored just the sqrt and wasn’t even aware they changed all the floors until yesterday
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
JMF helped to write HIP51 and dealt directly with this issue, he's an author of HIP80. I tend to defer to his judgement TBH.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 11:58 AM
He was not very influential on the DAO Utility score piece for 51. My understanding is his only remaining contribution to this HIP was a square root of the V score
Avatar
I remember him saying he built the 4th root equation, but I could be wrong. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 11:59 AM
Most of what ended up being HIP-51 was Shayon and Tushar at Multicoin
👆 1
Avatar
Yep, smart guys. I really like HIP51.
12:00
from a meta perspective anyways
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:00 PM
Yea so 81 keeps 51 intact just clarifies that you must onboard devices. 80 completely overhauls everything and uses plugs to get to whatever feels like the right answer
Avatar
HIP51 formula is elegant while HIP80 formula required the invention of floor after floor to make the math sort of work out
12:01
For just this specific situation too
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:02 PM
51 was written by arguably the smartest people on token incentives in the world. 80 had great contribution from very nice community members (edited)
👍 2
12:03
Both strong authors
Avatar
Avatar
groot
HIP51 formula is elegant while HIP80 formula required the invention of floor after floor to make the math sort of work out
I disagree as hip when modeled to reality will be inherently unstable no offence to the people that wrote it but it was a different time now the sentiment is low we might not be able to wait it out and it didn't take into account the free surface effect (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:04 PM
In fact I’d give the edge to 80 just on the basis of the authors
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I disagree as hip when modeled to reality will be inherently unstable no offence to the people that wrote it but it was a different time now the sentiment is low we might not be able to wait it out and it didn't take into account the free surface effect (edited)
free water? I thought it was free surface?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:05 PM
Come on, July 2022 was the peak of the bull run. LUNA may not have existed but Celsius might be giving us our funds back. FTX was still strong. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
51 was written by arguably the smartest people on token incentives in the world. 80 had great contribution from very nice community members (edited)
Yeah I agree, when I read it I was kinda floored at their creativity.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
free water? I thought it was free surface?
I looked it up and it's a terrible analogy too, free surface effect doesn't apply when you have all kinds of tethers preventing it acting like liquid.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Come on, July 2022 was the peak of the bull run. LUNA may not have existed but Celsius might be giving us our funds back. FTX was still strong. (edited)
many of its sentiments date to February which very much was
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:07 PM
There were tons of revisions up until the date of the vote.
👆 1
12:07
There was a whole staking game that got removed
12:08
It’s disingenuous to try to act like the HIP was written in February and sat in a drawer until the summer
💯 1
Avatar
Almost all of the scenarios that were argued here were handled gracefully by HIP51's utility score while HIP80 will need a lot more governance to adjust it. I personally like the HIP51 model better because it is just better in adapting.
12:09
The people who wrote it weren't stupid, quite the contrary
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Almost all of the scenarios that were argued here were handled gracefully by HIP51's utility score while HIP80 will need a lot more governance to adjust it. I personally like the HIP51 model better because it is just better in adapting.
let the markets decide, instead of floors and ceilings.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:09 PM
Exactly
Avatar
This is a tough call guys. The smartest guys in the Helium community seem to be divided on this issue, which gives me a lot of pause.
👍 1
Avatar
I also value how HIP51 doesn't need to have different values for different subDAOs.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I disagree as hip when modeled to reality will be inherently unstable no offence to the people that wrote it but it was a different time now the sentiment is low we might not be able to wait it out and it didn't take into account the free surface effect (edited)
What do you mean by the statement "different time now the sentiment is low"
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s disingenuous to try to act like the HIP was written in February and sat in a drawer until the summer
Im just saying its whole development cycle was from feb to july where market sentiment was 10x what it is today
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:16 PM
I don’t see really the relevance though (edited)
12:16
HIP-51 was built to be resilient against macro environmental forces
Avatar
Part of the reason they built it the way they built it was that it would adapt, both to new subDAOs as well market conditions
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Part of the reason they built it the way they built it was that it would adapt, both to new subDAOs as well market conditions
right but these both have wildly different growth cycles, IOT will grow slow and steady esp if the right inceptives are put in place, Mobile could grow as fast as you fed it for the foreseeable future but it needs to get to a critical mass in a certain amount of time
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:22 PM
That’s why the A factor exists and D factor exists. To balance those two things
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
right but these both have wildly different growth cycles, IOT will grow slow and steady esp if the right inceptives are put in place, Mobile could grow as fast as you fed it for the foreseeable future but it needs to get to a critical mass in a certain amount of time
I don't think you understood the point. It was written to adapt to everything you just described.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:23 PM
Then V allows the community to dictate which networks could be valuable in the future despite not being fully built
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't think you understood the point. It was written to adapt to everything you just described.
but this makes the assumption in a vacuum also it doesn't take time into consideration
Avatar
i don't think the authors of HIP51 made assumptions in a vacuum, saying that is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:29 PM
It’s just really difficult to argue that Tushar and Shayon somehow came up with a worse solution that you did in a week
12:30
Groot and I went down the rabbit hole of trying to improve the A score and the deeper we got the more realized how much nuance and forward thinking went into HIP-51
Avatar
Just as an outsider, I tend to agree that independent variables like price floors and ceilings are inelegant when market forces can dictate them. But there are externalities, like human emotion and the free-water effect that may complicate things.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Just as an outsider, I tend to agree that independent variables like price floors and ceilings are inelegant when market forces can dictate them. But there are externalities, like human emotion and the free-water effect that may complicate things.
There are several factors that make the free surface effect a bad analogy. For example when stake is low on a subDAO you will get more staking rewards thus dampening the abandonment until equilibrium is reached. When we add all those things up you can't really speak of a unhindered liquid moving around.
12:33
I fully agree though, arbitrary floors and ceilings are usually a sign that the model doesn't fit
Avatar
Avatar
groot
i don't think the authors of HIP51 made assumptions in a vacuum, saying that is either disingenuous or ignorant.
how could they have known where things would be today thats what I mean when saying in a vacuum they also assumed data would be flowing by end 22 you cant not take corrective actions which is what I am doing I didn't start from scratch but we are borrowing the good parts of 51 and improving the whole of Helium
Avatar
So if HIP81 passes, every MOBILE Hotspot owner is going to have to cough up a 50 dollar fee?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
how could they have known where things would be today thats what I mean when saying in a vacuum they also assumed data would be flowing by end 22 you cant not take corrective actions which is what I am doing I didn't start from scratch but we are borrowing the good parts of 51 and improving the whole of Helium
That's not what in a vacuum means, can't keep redefining words on us, makes it very hard to debate things.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:39 PM
No, the subDAO decides what number and who pays as long as it’s above the minimum
12:39
Otherwise it’ll be slashed from the treasury
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Otherwise it’ll be slashed from the treasury
only when the subDAO decide to reward them without onboarding though, so the subDAO can prevent the slashing by not doing that
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
So if HIP81 passes, every MOBILE Hotspot owner is going to have to cough up a 50 dollar fee?
we have bounced around hip 81 is pushing for 20 per gateway
Avatar
Thats fair
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
we have bounced around hip 81 is pushing for 20 per gateway
HIP81 provides a minimum, it isn't pushing for any value 🤷
12:41
arguably it will up to MOBILE subDAO to figure out if they want the HIP53 $40 or something else >= $20.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:41 PM
$10 on August 1 though
Avatar
TBH 50 USD for a IoT hotspot is too high
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:42 PM
It’s about 10% of the capex
12:42
Or it was
Avatar
yeah it made sense when it was 500 dollars
12:42
light hotspots are 50
Avatar
proposed min is $20 now, $10 after next halving. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Thats fair
starting day one mobile assuming we get $20 each gateway and even number of VeHNT from every will get 1.11% (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
starting day one mobile assuming we get $20 each gateway and even number of VeHNT from every will get 1.11% (edited)
It has always been the premise that the wild data usage MOBILE will bring will offset the A value advantage, you're just impatient. Talk to Boris more, he'll casually drop 10 yr timelines on you.
Avatar
I'm going the ferebee route and tell you that none of your values make sense
Avatar
Ferebee wrote Hip 80
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Ferebee wrote Hip 80
I'm aware, he didn't like my model because he found it unfair and fake. 🤷 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Ferebee wrote Hip 80
me Ferebee, JMF , and tushar and rawawan (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
me Ferebee, JMF , and tushar and rawawan (edited)
Tushar, really?
Avatar
HIP81 keeps it like HIP 51, just that MOBILE devices have to pay a onboarding fee.
12:50
Not sure how he thought it unfair
👍 1
Avatar
All Tushar did was tell you the max(1, ...) had nothing to do with a perceived value you attached to it.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:53 PM
Tushar wrote it
12:53
Lol
12:53
Tushar stepped in to say your assumption was wrong and that he didn’t care, he’d go along with the community
Avatar
For what it’s worth everyone involved in HIP51 agrees the VeHNT component needs a square root added. It was an earnest oversight.
👍 4
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
For what it’s worth everyone involved in HIP51 agrees the VeHNT component needs a square root added. It was an earnest oversight.
So HIP it separately without all the other bloat.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:54 PM
That’s fine, we can model that out and pass it as a stand alone HIP
Avatar
And that the allocation of onboarding fees to MOBILE needs to be addressed. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:55 PM
That’s HIP-81
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
me Ferebee, JMF , and tushar and rawawan (edited)
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 12:55 PM
I only see 3 names, no Tushar and not your name.
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
I only see 3 names, no Tushar and not your name.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:55 PM
Maybe he’s referring to the secret DMs
🤷‍♀️ 1
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
And that the allocation of onboarding fees to MOBILE needs to be addressed. (edited)
So essentially HIP81 + a HIP for the sqrt.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
I only see 3 names, no Tushar and not your name.
I was added Tushar I think didn't think he contributed enough
🤷 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So essentially HIP81 + a HIP for the sqrt.
I think a split of all FFi assertion fees would be the less controversial way to handle it personally.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:56 PM
Oh well I’m glad gateholder gave Tushar that valuable feedback that he needs to do more
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
I think a split of all FFi assertion fees would be the less controversial way to handle it personally.
lol I got shot down on that a long time ago...
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
I think a split of all FFi assertion fees would be the less controversial way to handle it personally.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:57 PM
It doesn’t make sense though. The gateways and radios are two completely different numbers
12:57
50% have no radio (edited)
Avatar
But it was also brought to our attention that the sum of fees for active devices was also a coding issue which is really what set this up. That’s over my head. I guess Solana doesn’t like a bunch of square roots and 4th roots.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:57 PM
The average gateway with a radio has 3
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
But it was also brought to our attention that the sum of fees for active devices was also a coding issue which is really what set this up. That’s over my head. I guess Solana doesn’t like a bunch of square roots and 4th roots.
I have it on good authority that the thing set up for the premine rewards is capable of oracling active devices in. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:58 PM
The issue is with dynamic pricing determining which miner is online and how much it paid
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I have it on good authority that the thing set up for the premine rewards is capable of oracling active devices in. (edited)
Bring ‘em into the discussion. That’s not my domain. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:58 PM
A factor can be changed to work around that issue
12:59
The discussion is apparently over. It’s gone to a temp check and going to a vote
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
But it was also brought to our attention that the sum of fees for active devices was also a coding issue which is really what set this up. That’s over my head. I guess Solana doesn’t like a bunch of square roots and 4th roots.
Okay, starting to make sense. quadratic roots are a problem in the Solana Dev environment so you cleaned up the equations.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 12:59 PM
Overwhelming support in favor of the HIP if you ignore the votes against it
😆 1
Avatar
Implementational detail is also a bad reason to throw away a better model.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Then V allows the community to dictate which networks could be valuable in the future despite not being fully built
Fuck, I hate it when I find myself agreeing with Max too many times in a row. 🙂
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Implementational detail is also a bad reason to throw away a better model.
In theory, but it needs to have code at this point.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I have it on good authority that the thing set up for the premine rewards is capable of oracling active devices in. (edited)
I also have it on good authority noah is hoping hip 80 passes as its very small change and unlikely to need extensive testing which many of the other options will (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:01 PM
What is this secret shit where some people are told in the background a problem may exist?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I also have it on good authority noah is hoping hip 80 passes as its very small change and unlikely to need extensive testing which many of the other options will (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:01 PM
Noah works for the network.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What is this secret shit where some people are told in the background a problem may exist?
this convo was recorded today in the solana AMA
13:01
very much a public forum
Avatar
You ever work at a company before? Sometimes you just need answers from people lol
Avatar
With absolutely no shade to Noah (since he's doing a tremendous job) HIP51 was always the case and that he needs a hip 3 weeks before golive is an oversight on his part and nothing else.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:02 PM
I worked at a papa John’s once. I suggested we just sell cheese pizza because it’s easier
😆 1
13:03
When I was at Deloitte I suggested hardcoding a bunch of numbers instead of doing all that pesky excel stuff. Also shot down
😄 1
Avatar
It sounds like we gotta bring these things to vote and tweak as needed after as long as it’s known how each will be implemented on the correct timeline.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:03 PM
We did
13:03
There was a temp check
13:03
It’s overwhelming against
Avatar
Avatar
groot
With absolutely no shade to Noah (since he's doing a tremendous job) HIP51 was always the case and that he needs a hip 3 weeks before golive is an oversight on his part and nothing else.
agreed he is doing a great job, and yes 51 is basically ready, but if there are problems those problems contingencies could be much harder to solve
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:03 PM
It’s going to a vote anyway apparently
Avatar
I mean a real vote
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:04 PM
Why have a temp check then
13:04
The community has spoken, it’s not ready
👆 3
Avatar
Because we have a deadline
❌ 2
Avatar
Helium could spend $48k/day on customer acquisitions for the IoT network instead of a Floor. Would be better for everyone in the long run than creating artificial interest.
Avatar
the issue was known when that deadline was set.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:05 PM
Right so working against a deadline, should we do a huge change or a small surgical change for the deadline specific things? (edited)
13:05
Like there are other options to vote on and pass
13:05
This one causes more issues than it solves
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
Helium could spend $48k/day on customer acquisitions for the IoT network instead of a Floor. Would be better for everyone in the long run than creating artificial interest.
no thats not how that works, it is just pumping the score to divert treasury its not actually burning it
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Right so working against a deadline, should we do a huge change or a small surgical change for the deadline specific things? (edited)
If there is a coding issue related to the functions that needs to be taken into account though.
Avatar
Until HIP80 passes Noah should've programmed HIP51. If he programmed HIP80 instead in the hopes it would pass that would be a terribly idea.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
For what it’s worth everyone involved in HIP51 agrees the VeHNT component needs a square root added. It was an earnest oversight.
I really do not think it accomplishes what you want it to accomplish (namely, protecting the IoT subDAO). If I am wrong, and the goal is to weaken the effect of a significantly distorted delegation ratio regardless to which subDAO, then it will work. It would be more effective if you did log(x) though. And the fourth root is better when you have negatively skewed distributions (which I don't think we have in this case). So square root the V factor or to maximize the goal of weakened distorted delegation use log(x). (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
no thats not how that works, it is just pumping the score to divert treasury its not actually burning it
Oh I see, yeah no way
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Until HIP80 passes Noah should've programmed HIP51. If he programmed HIP80 instead in the hopes it would pass that would be a terribly idea.
he said he could implament hip 80 in days
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
If there is a coding issue related to the functions that needs to be taken into account though.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:06 PM
I have not been made aware of any coding issues and I’ve been on every solana readiness call
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
he said he could implament hip 80 in days
Doesn't answer the question, HIP51 should've been coded period.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I really do not think it accomplishes what you want it to accomplish (namely, protecting the IoT subDAO). If I am wrong, and the goal is to weaken the effect of a significantly distorted delegation ratio regardless to which subDAO, then it will work. It would be more effective if you did log(x) though. And the fourth root is better when you have negatively skewed distributions (which I don't think we have in this case). So square root the V factor or to maximize the goal of weakened distorted delegation use log(x). (edited)
I mean I’ve got no issue with a log function either, but would need to default to the blockchain coders on that one
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:07 PM
There is no reason for a coding issue to affect the A score. A score is self reported by subDAOs so nothing on chain
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
I mean I’ve got no issue with a log function either, but would need to default to the blockchain coders on that one
They said there’s nothing they can’t do. Just let them know what we want and it’s a matter of time.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There is no reason for a coding issue to affect the A score. A score is self reported by subDAOs so nothing on chain
I've seen that working so I don't see the problem either.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:08 PM
The subDAOs can simply report their number with the fourth root already applied if it truly is an issue
13:08
Have some fucking creativity to solve problems rather than just scrapping it completely
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Doesn't answer the question, HIP51 should've been coded period.
it is but much simplier to delete things than to add
13:08
A is the most complicated part of the score
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
it is but much simplier to delete things than to add
I'm glad you're now a programmer.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
A is the most complicated part of the score
A is very easy since it is oracled in.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I'm glad you're now a programmer.
I am just repeating what Noah said
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:09 PM
Noah’s company was acquired to code the things the community votes on, not change the way things work outside of the HIP process
👆 3
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I am just repeating what Noah said
A little more Noah said would've been nice in that case.
Avatar
I'd like to assume everyone here wants Helium to succeed. That price floor set in HIP80 is a pillow. Can you imagine the hoopla if a day after migration everyone's rewards are cut in half on the IoT network? It would be pandemonium
13:10
I don't really like the idea of price floors, but I feel like that needs to be taken into account
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Noah’s company was acquired to code the things the community votes on, not change the way things work outside of the HIP process
any Coder or machinist knows that the more complex something is the more likely it is to break
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:10 PM
It’s a 3 variable formula
Avatar
So the key issues here are: 1) the cold start issue for subDAOs 2) the fuckup on mobile assertion fees 3) do we protect IOT and to what degree 4) a function that isn’t winner take all (hence the square root)
👍 4
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:11 PM
2 is the only thing that is pressing
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
So the key issues here are: 1) the cold start issue for subDAOs 2) the fuckup on mobile assertion fees 3) do we protect IOT and to what degree 4) a function that isn’t winner take all (hence the square root)
yes, yes, yes and yes
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
2 is the only thing that is pressing
but would be solved by HIP81.
👆 3
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:11 PM
1 3 and 4 have all been voted on and can be changed after migration without a time crunch
Avatar
Let’s vote on 81 then (edited)
Avatar
I think the temp check has shown that this HIP isn't ready for voting anyway. HIP81 is much simpler...
13:12
Back in the old days the thumbs up and down would've been sufficient to vote it down completely 😂
Avatar
So people want to inflate the IoT network because the user base wouldn't continue to support it for years until it's more profitable? Seems like a major divide in investor understanding and foundation timelines.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
2 is the only thing that is pressing
all of these things matter and there is very little chance of anything changing post migration
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
all of these things matter and there is very little chance of anything changing post migration
[citation needed]
Avatar
I dunno man, have you ventured outside of Discord? Helium is not exactly looked at positively... And if people found out that their rewards were cut in half because of some newfangled subDAO stuff, they would be super pissed. We can't completely forget people outside of the USA either, and they don't have access to CBRS.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
all of these things matter and there is very little chance of anything changing post migration
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:14 PM
But that’s counter to your argument that we can go back and change the floor values if they aren’t right
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I dunno man, have you ventured outside of Discord? Helium is not exactly looked at positively... And if people found out that their rewards were cut in half because of some newfangled subDAO stuff, they would be super pissed. We can't completely forget people outside of the USA either, and they don't have access to CBRS.
People are going to be pissed no matter what. Caps comments are suggesting we cut out any inefficient deployments.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I dunno man, have you ventured outside of Discord? Helium is not exactly looked at positively... And if people found out that their rewards were cut in half because of some newfangled subDAO stuff, they would be super pissed. We can't completely forget people outside of the USA either, and they don't have access to CBRS.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:15 PM
If that’s the case the price of HNT will affect their sentiment
Avatar
IoT is going to have a reality check sooner or later.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:15 PM
More data transfer should affect it. I’m not allowed to opine which way
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I dunno man, have you ventured outside of Discord? Helium is not exactly looked at positively... And if people found out that their rewards were cut in half because of some newfangled subDAO stuff, they would be super pissed. We can't completely forget people outside of the USA either, and they don't have access to CBRS.
They shouldn't be finding out, they should be aware of what's going on given the type of project
Avatar
Avatar
groot
[citation needed]
actually Noah said that lol (edited)
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
IoT is going to have a reality check sooner or later.
I'm actually seeing a huge increase in data transfers with more and more hivemappers in my area
👍 1
Avatar
That's true. IoT ecosystem is in hot water IMHO, the future of Helium is greater than IoT and HIP80 seems to look at it from a sunk cost perspective.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:17 PM
Noah said there won’t be HIPs passed in solana?
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
I'm actually seeing a huge increase in data transfers with more and more hivemappers in my area
That’s great and what we should look forward to. The reality check will be relating to density/saturation
Avatar
That said, IoT has great promise, but Helium is much bigger than just IoT.
👍 1
Avatar
Helium is bigger than any one subDAO which is why the HIP51 model that actually allows more subDAOs too is nicer than this convoluted floor model that was made to specifically fit the current scenario
👍 1
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
That's true. IoT ecosystem is in hot water IMHO, the future of Helium is greater than IoT and HIP80 seems to look at it from a sunk cost perspective.
HIP 80 is giving IOT a clock and a runway, it also protect the short-term of mobile which if you look at the calculation will only receive 1% of the emissions until helium mobile launches (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
HIP 80 is giving IOT a clock and a runway, it also protect the short-term of mobile which if you look at the calculation will only receive 1% of the emissions until helium mobile launches (edited)
4 years is a long clock
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Helium is bigger than any one subDAO which is why the HIP51 model that actually allows more subDAOs too is nicer than this convoluted floor model that was made to specifically fit the current scenario
Agree. We are going to have to address this every time to fit the new entrants (with a floor*) (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:20 PM
It’s just difficult to support it when one of the alleged authors continues to say objectively false statements over and over.
Avatar
HIP81 is ready. Who needs to turn that voting thing on in my Helium Wallet app?
👆 2
✅ 3
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:20 PM
I’ll try to remove my bias and just vote on the content of the HIP
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Agree. We are going to have to address this every time to fit the new entrants (with a floor*) (edited)
Not sustainable and subject to bias every time, HIP51 is better at that.
👍 1
Avatar
My brain like 81 but my heart like 80. This is the most difficult decision HIP I've read
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
That’s great and what we should look forward to. The reality check will be relating to density/saturation
Yeah I agree with you on that part! There is no need for hundreds of miners within a dozen hexes
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
Yeah I agree with you on that part! There is no need for hundreds of miners within a dozen hexes
Agreed, IoT network has a PoC problem. (edited)
Avatar
That soon becomes the subDAOs problem though as it will be an IOT token distribution problem.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Agreed, IoT network has a PoC problem. (edited)
PoC was a scheme that wasn't designed to last this long. I really think IoT will start exploding soon but people need faith, not artificial faith either (edited)
Avatar
I hope you're right it has stiff competition
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I hope you're right it has stiff competition
From who? Like Amazon?
👍 1
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:24 PM
im struggling to see anywhere else i could take sensors to and have any hope of roaming
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
From who? Like Amazon?
I've been demoing their product, coverage is quite good.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I've been demoing their product, coverage is quite good.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 1:25 PM
Bye privacy 😅
Avatar
everywhere I have Helium Coverage I have Sidewalk coverage
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:25 PM
unless amazon force it upon customers most of them will disable the feature as thats not what they brought it for
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Bye privacy 😅
Agreed. I don't like Sidewalk, just trying it out.
👍 1
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:26 PM
"i dont want x being able to do anything on my network" (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
unless amazon force it upon customers most of them will disable the feature as thats not what they brought it for
You overestimate people caring at all about their privacy.
😅 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I've been demoing their product, coverage is quite good.
How's it scale tho? The hardware is anemic compared to Helium. I could see it getting congested easily and they need to convince people to buy new Rings to upgrade hardware revisions
13:27
This is hella off topic tho
13:27
especially for this channel
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
You overestimate people caring at all about their privacy.
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:27 PM
it only takes 1 article to go viral and have tin foil hats go on .
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
This is hella off topic tho
true.
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
How's it scale tho? The hardware is anemic compared to Helium. I could see it getting congested easily and they need to convince people to buy new Rings to upgrade hardware revisions
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:27 PM
You just subsidize the gateway for those that are likely to use the devices
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:28 PM
is it off topic thought its about the scaling factor of iot. if theres a viable alternative solution that will slow down iots growth in the helium system . if theres no competition then what other option do people have but helium, (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
is it off topic thought its about the scaling factor of iot. if theres a viable alternative solution that will slow down iots growth in the helium system . if theres no competition then what other option do people have but helium, (edited)
IMHO, it's a viable solution. Helium needs to differentiate itself from Sidewalk somehow.
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
PoC was a scheme that wasn't designed to last this long. I really think IoT will start exploding soon but people need faith, not artificial faith either (edited)
It was designed to last over a decade….
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
IMHO, it's a viable solution. Helium needs to differentiate itself from Sidewalk somehow.
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:29 PM
we have "full iot" sidewalk is just a jazzed up single channel sensor
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:30 PM
Does sidewalk using LoRa not make sensors cheaper?
☝️ 1
Avatar
How's it's vertical coverage? Seems limited to sidewalk height
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
How's it's vertical coverage? Seems limited to sidewalk height
I havent taken it above 3 floors, I don't know.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Because we have a deadline
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 1:31 PM
Deadlines for deadline's sake is always terrible. You ever work at a company before? 😉
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Does sidewalk using LoRa not make sensors cheaper?
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:31 PM
anything that bring economy of scale makes this cheaper in the long run . but just because things are cheaper to make doesnt make them cheaper to buy
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:32 PM
I’ve seen going around at CES this year that NB-IOT is the preferred option. Amazon supporting LoRa could change that sentiment
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
we have "full iot" sidewalk is just a jazzed up single channel sensor
I don't know if Sidewalk is strictly Class A, or if it supports B. If it doesn't support B then Helium will have an advantage there,
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:33 PM
as far as i can tell the echo type amazon devices are the main crux of the "gateways" they are all sat in some room somewhere with onboard antenna is that going to offer a better coverage than a helium 8 channel gateway with a 6dbi antenna 15m up above the tree line
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve seen going around at CES this year that NB-IOT is the preferred option. Amazon supporting LoRa could change that sentiment
I think it will
Avatar
Avatar
BuckGup
Yeah I agree with you on that part! There is no need for hundreds of miners within a dozen hexes
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 1:33 PM
That is being worked on 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
That is being worked on 🙂
Very excited to hear that.
👍 1
13:35
Sidewalk only has coverage in Suburbs and Cities. Helium needs to incentivize coverage outside of that, also make it easier for device builders to support both Sidewalk and Helium at the same time.
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:35 PM
sidewalk might work in a populated area such as a trading estate or residential. but for true roaming we need something with better coverage than amazons offerings
☝️ 1
13:36
i havent looked but i would be supprised if amazon let devs/makers work on other iot projects while working with sidewalk . id love to be corrected 😄 (edited)
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:48 PM
that will be binance or someones wallet. but this isnt the place to ask
13:49
ask in #general
Avatar
seems off topic for this channel yes. but whale wallets are typically a large deployer or an exchange/operator
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
seems off topic for this channel yes. but whale wallets are typically a large deployer or an exchange/operator
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:50 PM
i hope you copied that first 😄
Avatar
copied what i was writing? yeah, i did lol
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/07/2023 1:50 PM
😄
Avatar
I wonder (specifically asking @Max - Just Max @groot as HIP 81 authors and @JMF @ferebee since you all are authors on HIP 80) but also open to other feedback here. What if we: 1. Kept the Utility Score components V, A, D as set in HIP 51 and affirmed in HIP 81. but add the sqrt function as proposed in HIP 80. or a log function instead. 2. Set the minimum onboarding fee as proposed in HIP 81 3. Set a very opinionated view on who has to pay for those onboards in HIP 81 4. Made it clear what the impact is of not "onboarding". (is it no MOBILE rewards? not assumed/added to the Utility Score?) Just need to be precise here for implementation. 5. Made it clear how to onboard new devices (should be clear) and who pays. 6. Withdrew HIP 80 I think we need to get to a vote by Monday so we have at least 6 days to vote here and for us to socialize the vote. That's why I'm pushing hard. Or the end outcome is going to be a default value of A = 1 here for the MOBILE subdao. Also need to give the Nova and Bobcat teams some guidance on what they want to do with Hotspot onboards post migration. Do they onboard only on IOT? Only on MOBILE? How do you add to the "other" network if so. They need answers. (edited)
👆 1
👍 1
13:55
=> #hip-81-minimum-onboarding-fee sorry... should probably continue convo there.
13:55
but hopefully hip 80 authors can comment there. and decide if they're willing to withdraw in favor of a hip81 vote. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:55 PM
I know this sounds like a cop out answer, but I think it’s important to have HIPs for the Helium DAO that set the rules and subDAO proposals that govern a lot of those questions within the subDAO
Avatar
just trying to get us to a vote sooner rather than later and i think hip 81 is a bit simpler by not dropping active devices and not introducing a new "floor"
👍 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 1:57 PM
2 and 4 are covered by 81. If not it can be updated to be more clear.
13:58
And then question 1 - I still haven’t seen data suggesting the square root is needed. Keith made a pretty strong case that it doesn’t have the intended affect. I support anyone who wants to make a V score HIP
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
just trying to get us to a vote sooner rather than later and i think hip 81 is a bit simpler by not dropping active devices and not introducing a new "floor"
Can the Solana Ecosystem accommodate the mathematics required for 81?
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Can the Solana Ecosystem accommodate the mathematics required for 81?
active device count is something we can continue to fetch through switchboard oracles, yes.
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 2:01 PM
Do my answers suffice for what you are looking for? Otherwise we can work on improving 81
Avatar
i think i see what you're trying to do (which makes sense in the abstract sense) that a separate hip that addresses each issue separately is a good idea. and that hip 80 is pretty complex / has a lot of moving parts.
14:02
but i also want to acknowledge that we're so close to the migration and there are real impacts to these hips that we need to have a single adjustment via HIP to dao scores and things that affect it.
14:02
otherwise we end up in a potential state where partial passing of HIPs make it hard to understand the end outcome.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 2:03 PM
Is adding a square root to V post migration a huge issue?
14:04
I just really don’t want to blindly add something to a HIP with my name on it without seeing any data to suggest it’s needed (edited)
Avatar
I'm not against the sqrt I just didn't see much data why it was necessary.
👍 1
14:10
1) potentially, would need an edit 2) done 3) don't think the DAO can decide for the subDAOs so it's tricky 4) done, or does it need more clarification? 5) we can elaborate on it I guess
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
And then question 1 - I still haven’t seen data suggesting the square root is needed. Keith made a pretty strong case that it doesn’t have the intended affect. I support anyone who wants to make a V score HIP
can you link me to the case? this backscroll is brutal.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
1) potentially, would need an edit 2) done 3) don't think the DAO can decide for the subDAOs so it's tricky 4) done, or does it need more clarification? 5) we can elaborate on it I guess
3) we don't have the subdaos and the current state is that nothing gets to a vote and we just end up with what gateholder described as the "double 1" situation for MOBILE
👆 1
14:12
is where KeithR started
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
3) we don't have the subdaos and the current state is that nothing gets to a vote and we just end up with what gateholder described as the "double 1" situation for MOBILE
I don't want to be the one doing subDAO stuff in a DAO HIP so that's a decision that must be forced/explicitly allowed by Fdn or whatever we think is the governing body before subDAOs go active (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
can you link me to the case? this backscroll is brutal.
Sheet1 Emission to miners (HNT),55,890 subDAO Network Data Transfer and Device Count in Epoch X LoRaWAN DC burned (in USD),$500.00,5G DC burned (in USD),$0.00,WiFi DC burned (in USD),$1,000.00,<--- 5g will have 0 data till Helium mobile launches LoRaWAN Devices (#),460,000,5G Devices,3,700,WiFi ...
Avatar
Avatar
groot
is where KeithR started
[only responding to groot out of convenience for thread] skip to here: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093790257339695154 Shows the outcomes on the HNT distribution based on various transformations. here is the excel file if you want to play with it yourself. multiple tabs were done to test various delegation ratios (edited)
🙏 1
Avatar
thx keith!
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
[only responding to groot out of convenience for thread] skip to here: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093790257339695154 Shows the outcomes on the HNT distribution based on various transformations. here is the excel file if you want to play with it yourself. multiple tabs were done to test various delegation ratios (edited)
You're the best. I've looked at this model a bit and it depends on the goal of adding the sqrt. I think that this sqrt can be used to decrease the possibility that you can lock out rewards to a single subDAO delegating a whale amount to a single subDAO.
14:34
so if that's the goal then I think it's alright, but JMF didn't really specify (or I just missed it) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You're the best. I've looked at this model a bit and it depends on the goal of adding the sqrt. I think that this sqrt can be used to decrease the possibility that you can lock out rewards to a single subDAO delegating a whale amount to a single subDAO.
Agree. If the goal is to decrease the affect of any one subDAO that got a disproportionate amount of delegation of veHNT to it from getting everything, it works. But if you want to protect a specific subDAO, then you risk a counterproductive outcome (which happens if that specific subDAO is the one that got the disproportionate amount of delegation of veHNT). Now how much do you want to decrease the effect guides you to either square root or log(x); I am leaving out fourth root as it is more effective when you have a negatively skewed distribution and in this scenario we do not have that).
Avatar
e.g. if you subDAO A doing $10M data transfers with 500k veHNT staked and subDAO B doing 10k data transfers with 25M veHNT staked, the subDAO A will get just 50% without the sqrt.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
e.g. if you subDAO A doing $10M data transfers with 500k veHNT staked and subDAO B doing 10k data transfers with 25M veHNT staked, the subDAO A will get just 50% without the sqrt.
In this scenario having 90% on subDAO A would be more realistic, I think
Avatar
You are doing a good job by using "subDAO a" and "subDAO b"! If you use "IoT subDAO", the argument gets messy. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
You are doing a good job by using "subDAO a" and "subDAO b"! If you use "IoT subDAO", the argument gets messy. (edited)
thanks, was intentionally trying to avoid that 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You're the best. I've looked at this model a bit and it depends on the goal of adding the sqrt. I think that this sqrt can be used to decrease the possibility that you can lock out rewards to a single subDAO delegating a whale amount to a single subDAO.
That is in fact why it was added. A log would do something similar if my thought process is correct. On my phone at the moment so not modeling.
14:47
Earlier in the thread we talked about the winner take all issue with a linear factor in the equation
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
That is in fact why it was added. A log would do something similar if my thought process is correct. On my phone at the moment so not modeling.
Ok, in that case I can see the value. One consideration is that if you scale it down too far delegating becomes useless and it will be rewarding to just burn a small amount.
Avatar
If the rest of the equation is superior it makes sense for everyone to pile VeHNT into one subdao except at the most extreme edges
Avatar
So e.g. a 4th root will make it have so little weight compared to data you can better just burn data
Avatar
There just needs to be a balancing factor that makes it so subDAOs with lower “other” scores have a reason to attract VeHNT
14:49
The data equation gets hairy so we don’t run into HIP10 issues of people being able to game it to get more rewards than the cost of sending junk data. The cost of moving that needle needs to be very high.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
The data equation gets hairy so we don’t run into HIP10 issues of people being able to game it to get more rewards than the cost of sending junk data. The cost of moving that needle needs to be very high.
Can you rephrase this, I don't understand where you want to go with this statement?
14:51
Higher veHNT weight or lower
Avatar
Unrelated. I meant the part of the equation tied to DC burn.
14:52
The impact of more data needs to be weighed against the obvious gaming mechanism of pumping fake data to increase score enough so that the reward for the data is greater than the cost of the data
14:52
Same core issue that was addressed in HIP10
Avatar
The DAO utility score is multiplicative so if the veHNT part is scaled down (by a 4th root for example) it is more valuable to burn than delegate.
Avatar
That’s why it had a 4th root to start. A squared root may accomplish this as well.
Avatar
so we can't discount the veHNT part too far.
Avatar
We’ll just need to keep an eye on obvious infusions of burned DC
Avatar
so sqrt(V)
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
That’s why it had a 4th root to start. A squared root may accomplish this as well.
on D(ata) or on V?
Avatar
I see your point there too
14:54
To a degree. The lock on VeHNT helps
14:55
They both need some kind of root function imo
14:55
The question is to what degree
Avatar
I agree, but if we take it to an extreme and take the 100th root, why would I then lock up my HNT for some minute advantage if I can just burn some data.
14:56
Perhaps a sqrt on V and just slash the subDAOs for gaming is sufficient.
14:56
(although I hate governance if protocol could suffice)
Avatar
That calc is a little more complex than that because all your judging is the amount HNT return from staking not necessarily the incremental value to the equation of your contribution. In most cases the incremental value should not move the equation much
Avatar
although i love slashing as a good stick measure, i'm not sure how to design slashing for a subnetwork that can be fairly governed by the overall governance.
14:58
veHNT delegators are the ones you're potentially going to slash. not in their interest to slash the network they're gaming.
Avatar
The VeHNT lock period also fights that becuase once you burn it you can no longer benefit from longer lock multiples
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
although i love slashing as a good stick measure, i'm not sure how to design slashing for a subnetwork that can be fairly governed by the overall governance.
ya there will always be incentive
Avatar
i don't hate the idea of using a log function on veHNT here fwiw. i think the curve looks a bit better
Avatar
and who holds the stick
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
and who holds the stick
can i hold the stick? jk
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
i don't hate the idea of using a log function on veHNT here fwiw. i think the curve looks a bit better
I played with log it works just as well IMO
Avatar
log would be fine too.
Avatar
high degree root functions are really hard to explain. so i'd avoid exotic 4th roots
15:02
especially if a log function works. explainable with comparisons to noise levels and earthquake intensity
Avatar
yes because dB's always calm everyone right down 😏
😂 2
Avatar
everything is relative? 😛 (edited)
Avatar
it sure is
15:08
I'm fine with log after playing around in Keith's doc a bit
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:09 PM
Does square rooting the V change in importance if the A exists vs if it doesn’t ? (edited)
Avatar
A get's a little more weight but it's pretty strongly discounted due to the 4th root
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:10 PM
No I mean VDA vs VD
Avatar
I'm not sure, I only checked what log(V) did on a hip51 model
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:11 PM
What number did you assume for total veHNT staked? (edited)
Avatar
I tried some, a lot, and really a lot. Same basic outcome. It attenuated the effect of huge differences in delegation between subDAOs. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What number did you assume for total veHNT staked? (edited)
25M
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:13 PM
If there’s 1B veHNT (which is what I’m projecting) is the whale scenario possible?
Avatar
Yes, because of the option to delegate and switch delegation is super easy.
15:14
A simple tweet from Nic and boom everyone switches overnight.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:14 PM
Oh that’s way too low. There so much more regular HNT staked plus the 3x and the potential 100x
Avatar
Yes I forgot the 100x modifier
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:14 PM
The market wanting exposure to one of the DNTs should be a driving force
Avatar
Of course. Log(x) allows for the maximal attenuation from extremes differences in delegation between the subDAOs.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:16 PM
But if everyone wants mobile and no one wants IOT, do we want to hurt mobile?
Avatar
if you discount V you can't hurt mobile? (or at least not a lot) (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:16 PM
It’s just hard to see one whale having that much influence with fractional staking and 100x multipliers
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But if everyone wants mobile and no one wants IOT, do we want to hurt mobile?
As soon as you fill in the variables of "subDAO a" or "subDAO b", you get the potential of a counterproductive outcome.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
As soon as you fill in the variables of "subDAO a" or "subDAO b", you get the potential of a counterproductive outcome.
if the goal is protection you mean?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
if the goal is protection you mean?
yes
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:18 PM
Just using it as example. The staking allows people to get exposure to subdaos they think will have value
Avatar
Avatar
groot
if the goal is protection you mean?
or to reward the subDAO that got all the delegation.
Avatar
so with a log you can move the needle using delegation but not to 100, is the gist I think
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:19 PM
If people want your token at the opportunity cost of a large chunk of the 6% pot from another token that should tell you something
15:21
I have no strong convictions either way. Just trying to understand the issue we’re solving and likely it is to occur
Avatar
I will write up a PR on 81 with the proposed changes tomorrow, or rather later today coolcry
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I will write up a PR on 81 with the proposed changes tomorrow, or rather later today coolcry
This is because of the concern of passing 81 but not 82 (if changing V factor were on its own)?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
This is because of the concern of passing 81 but not 82 (if changing V factor were on its own)?
Mostly because of the Fdn guidance that we need it done yesterday, but if it is contentious we can write it up separately
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:26 PM
Is it a major difference to pass the V HIP before or after the migration?
Avatar
Debatable, probably not from a mgmt standpoint but from a coding standpoint it might be annoying
15:27
Although I doubt adding a sqrt is influential (coding wise) (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:27 PM
It’s objectively better to decide when we know how much veHNT there is. Trying to measure the trade offs
15:28
If there is a HIP in github and maybe a disclaimer in the app no one is going to feel rugged
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s objectively better to decide when we know how much veHNT there is. Trying to measure the trade offs
I disagree [now]. If you wait, you are trying to achieve a specific outcome. And that outcome can be changed overnight any ways.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If there is a HIP in github and maybe a disclaimer in the app no one is going to feel rugged
That would be misleading. You don’t know how someone is going to feel. C’mon (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:29 PM
How? I’m just a guy proposing a HIP. Those that stake can vote it down if they don’t like it
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
How? I’m just a guy proposing a HIP. Those that stake can vote it down if they don’t like it
Nothing wrong with proposing a hip. But steer clear of emotional stuff. Just a recommendation
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I disagree [now]. If you wait, you are trying to achieve a specific outcome. And that outcome can be changed overnight any ways.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:31 PM
No, since veHNT delegation is basically a ratio of staker sentiment, there is a different need for the square root of its 10 veHNT staked vs 10 million vs 1 billion
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No, since veHNT delegation is basically a ratio of staker sentiment, there is a different need for the square root of its 10 veHNT staked vs 10 million vs 1 billion
I don't think that is right...but I will be right back after I test it out.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:32 PM
The linear number gets a truer sense of sentiment and the more veHNT there is, the less rogue stakers play a role (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Nothing wrong with proposing a hip. But steer clear of emotional stuff. Just a recommendation
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:33 PM
Very not emotional, im riding my peloton right now
😂 3
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The linear number gets a truer sense of sentiment and the more veHNT there is, the less rogue stakers play a role (edited)
A linear number effectively guarentees winner take most or all
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No, since veHNT delegation is basically a ratio of staker sentiment, there is a different need for the square root of its 10 veHNT staked vs 10 million vs 1 billion
Shall I test 80/20 distribution between the subDAOs or 90/10? Or 95/5?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:34 PM
Why wouldn’t I want to get a ton of another DNT if everyone else dilutes the 6% bucket?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Why wouldn’t I want to get a ton of another DNT if everyone else dilutes the 6% bucket?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 3:35 PM
Because that 6% bucket gets bigger
Avatar
Because HNT going to the subdao is what defines most of the value of the subdao so if you are optimizing for HNT conversion value you always go to the one producing the most HNT per unit locked
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:36 PM
It doesn’t do it efficiently though and it’s worse than a 1:1 return
15:36
Also this is crypto, there’s ton of speculation
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Because HNT going to the subdao is what defines most of the value of the subdao so if you are optimizing for HNT conversion value you always go to the one producing the most HNT per unit locked
I’m starting to get less fuzzy on your scenario and tend to agree
Avatar
I mean you could in theory just convert to hnt and then buy the other subdao with those rewards. Correct not 100% efficient but still theoretically possible. Might as well avoid winner take all scenario out of the gate
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:38 PM
If everyone delegates to a single subDAO it would be a square root of 1B:1 ratio rather than a 1B:1 ratio
15:38
Is that basically what we’re trying to avoid
15:39
Keith, I’m on mobile, can you run a 55/45 split and 65/35 split using the square root and not using the square root?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If everyone delegates to a single subDAO it would be a square root of 1B:1 ratio rather than a 1B:1 ratio
The point is to avoid everyone delegating to one sunDAO
15:41
Because at some point under a square root your return for the other subDAO is superior
15:41
There’s a balance
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:41 PM
I don’t see how that stops it other than it kinda blunts the extremes
Avatar
Blunts it is an understatement
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:42 PM
It’s all ratios though
Avatar
What’s the square root of 100?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:42 PM
10
Avatar
What’s the sq root of 1000
15:42
About 32
15:43
Point being it’s not linear
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:43 PM
I get the point you're making but I think the other 2 factors make it not become a 1 to 1 situation anyway
Avatar
So if you keep piling into an overstated protocol the other protocol becomes the better ROI for the incremental VeHNT
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:44 PM
lemme do some excel stuff on my phone
Avatar
All it does is it pretty much guarentees a non winner take all situation on VeHNT
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:45 PM
What is the effect in the mid range where its a 65/35 split or closer?
Avatar
Split of what?
15:45
The point is there’s no reason for the mid range to exist for VeHNT
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:45 PM
lets just assume 2 subdaos, 65 to one 35 to the other
Avatar
It only really makes sense to go winner take all in return seeking
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:46 PM
But that's assuming no speculation in the DNT value
Avatar
True but that’s an unknown not worth speculating on imo
15:47
Also when you can convert to hnt and buy the other it blunts that effect
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:47 PM
I think its very worth speculating on. I don't expect any MOBILE token to be redeemed for HNT
Avatar
If I was being logical I’d take my rewards, go to hnt then buy the other
15:49
So let’s say you get 3 HNT per unit of VeHNT in IOT vs 1 HNT per unit of VeHNT in Mobile, which is a very realistic multiple, you’re making a hell of a speculative get going MOBILE
15:50
Imo there’s very little reason not to combat this issue now. The likelihood is high enough to make it worth an early fix
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:50 PM
Okay so lets look at in the mid range. If 65% of the veHNT goes to a single subDAO, its gets 57.67% reflected in the score
Avatar
delegation ratio between subDAO a / subDAO b / subDAO c = percentage share of HNT using square root, percentage share of HNT using log(x) [rounded] 80/20 2 / 8 / 1 = 39/56/4 , 53/38/9 2M / 8M / 1 = 41/59/0 , 55/43/1 2B / 8B / 1 = 41/59/0 , 56/43/1 55/45 4.5M / 5.5M / 1 = 56/44/0 , 57/42/1 4.5B / 5.5B / 1 = 56/44/0 , 57/42/1 65/35 6.5M / 3.5M / 1 = 65/35/0 , 58/41/1 6.5B / 3.5B / 1 = 65/35/0 , 58/41/1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:51 PM
55% correleates to 52.5%
15:51
I think within a certain range we want it to be linear
Avatar
It makes no sense to look at the midrange imo
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:51 PM
Thats the likely outcome
Avatar
The incentive structure says it will not be the likely outcome
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:52 PM
people are greedy and will want a bigger piece of the pie
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
people are greedy and will want a bigger piece of the pie
which means it should work out to be 50/50, or 33/34/33
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:52 PM
People will want a bigger cut of a DNT that is decoupled from HNT backing which both DNTs will be at the start
Avatar
Yes and you get a bigger part of the delegated pie going all in on one
Avatar
Planful people will plan for the third subDAO and temporarily put that position in the favorite of the two current subDAOs. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:54 PM
There is going to be staking and burning of DNTs for different functions
15:54
Its not simply a coupon for treasury HNT
Avatar
Im thinking from the standpoint of the neutral large holder
Avatar
Which means you get a 67/33 distribution temporarily for an individual.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:54 PM
If it was and there were no premines and it was strictly a coupon for HNT, I'd agree
Avatar
I still don’t see why we wouldn’t put this simple defense against that to maintain some balance
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:55 PM
Let's look at a dead subdao
Avatar
Do you want to attenuate the effect of the scenario of "if everyone thinks a specific subDAO will win and they delegate to it"?
Avatar
That I still think we need to defend against by getting rid of the max function
15:56
At least over time
15:56
Let the other factors go to 0
Avatar
Avatar
hashc0de
I wonder (specifically asking @Max - Just Max @groot as HIP 81 authors and @JMF @ferebee since you all are authors on HIP 80) but also open to other feedback here. What if we: 1. Kept the Utility Score components V, A, D as set in HIP 51 and affirmed in HIP 81. but add the sqrt function as proposed in HIP 80. or a log function instead. 2. Set the minimum onboarding fee as proposed in HIP 81 3. Set a very opinionated view on who has to pay for those onboards in HIP 81 4. Made it clear what the impact is of not "onboarding". (is it no MOBILE rewards? not assumed/added to the Utility Score?) Just need to be precise here for implementation. 5. Made it clear how to onboard new devices (should be clear) and who pays. 6. Withdrew HIP 80 I think we need to get to a vote by Monday so we have at least 6 days to vote here and for us to socialize the vote. That's why I'm pushing hard. Or the end outcome is going to be a default value of A = 1 here for the MOBILE subdao. Also need to give the Nova and Bobcat teams some guidance on what they want to do with Hotspot onboards post migration. Do they onboard only on IOT? Only on MOBILE? How do you add to the "other" network if so. They need answers. (edited)
You are proposing that “somebody” write a HIP with those points you mention, of which most are reasonable and some are difficult. That HIP doesn’t currently exist, though HIP-81 covers parts of what you list. I’m not sure who is going to write it. I’m not, as I disagree with several of the points, for reasons I have explained at length in the HIP-80 channel, after researching the whole thing carefully for weeks. I am also not going to withdraw HIP-80. The normal due process would be to vote on HIP-80, which has been discussed for over a week, then vote on HIP-81, which has just dropped. Due to time constraints, that’s problematic. It’s been suggested that HIP-80 and HIP-81 be put to vote simultaneously. I’m fine with that. As they contradict each other in some respects, I propose that if we have a simultaneous vote, a special clause be added to both HIPs that if both pass, the one which gets the greater percentage of votes is accepted, and the other is discarded.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:56 PM
Mobile dies, RIP Mobile, everyone stakes to IOT. 1% of the tokens don't move because of lazy stake, Mobile gets 9.1% of the ratio in that scenario (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Mobile dies, RIP Mobile, everyone stakes to IOT. 1% of the tokens don't move because of lazy stake, Mobile gets 9.1% of the ratio in that scenario (edited)
If DC usage goes to 0 and we remove the max or put it on a timeline the HNT rewards go to 0
Avatar
Is there a need for the max(1,n) if every subDAO onboards their devices with a DC burn?
Avatar
Or drop it after a year or whatever
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:58 PM
dead and effectively dead are two different things though
Avatar
he is mostly dead.
15:58
but if not for true love.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:58 PM
Pollen can still has devices online and people can jam data through their radios
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
You are proposing that “somebody” write a HIP with those points you mention, of which most are reasonable and some are difficult. That HIP doesn’t currently exist, though HIP-81 covers parts of what you list. I’m not sure who is going to write it. I’m not, as I disagree with several of the points, for reasons I have explained at length in the HIP-80 channel, after researching the whole thing carefully for weeks. I am also not going to withdraw HIP-80. The normal due process would be to vote on HIP-80, which has been discussed for over a week, then vote on HIP-81, which has just dropped. Due to time constraints, that’s problematic. It’s been suggested that HIP-80 and HIP-81 be put to vote simultaneously. I’m fine with that. As they contradict each other in some respects, I propose that if we have a simultaneous vote, a special clause be added to both HIPs that if both pass, the one which gets the greater percentage of votes is accepted, and the other is discarded.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/07/2023 3:59 PM
Tempcheck for vote clearly has more 👎 than 👍
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 3:59 PM
if a small amount of lazy stake remains towards that subdao it never dies
16:00
could we do an if function where if one subDAO receives more than 70% of the veHNT delegated towards then we square root?
Avatar
if > 95%, log(x), else if >70%, SQRT(x), else x
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:01 PM
I just wanna protect the linear function in the mid range
16:01
then have the guard rails on the extremes
16:02
(though i think guard rails on the extremes hurt in the case of a dead subdao but whatever)
Avatar
Don't you have a boundary effect then Max? Somewhere between 67.5 and 70 the subDAO would be better off it it doesn't reach 71.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
(though i think guard rails on the extremes hurt in the case of a dead subdao but whatever)
In that case it gets deplatformed
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
In that case it gets deplatformed
that woul dhave to be by a separate process though. Max is trying to have the math solve the issue.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Don't you have a boundary effect then Max? Somewhere between 67.5 and 70 the subDAO would be better off it it doesn't reach 71.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:04 PM
yea 70% drops you down 60%, good point
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
In that case it gets deplatformed
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:04 PM
I wouldn't count on anything with human intervention to happen
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I wouldn't count on anything with human intervention to happen
some group will piss and moan to stop the process.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
that woul dhave to be by a separate process though. Max is trying to have the math solve the issue.
Then this will always have a wall to entry which won't bring new subs
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:05 PM
Fisher is coming to save the day, don't deplatform
16:05
we're doing a DAO now
16:05
chainlink is involved
16:05
yadda yadda yadda
16:05
been there
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Don't you have a boundary effect then Max? Somewhere between 67.5 and 70 the subDAO would be better off it it doesn't reach 71.
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:07 PM
It'll make a cool prisoner's dilemna situation
16:08
wait the log function just makes every score hover around 51/49?
Avatar
I think you are trying to solve for two competing scenarios that look exactly alike mathematically. A) everybody knows subDAO a is going to succeed and therefore delegates to it; but we want subDAO b to still get a little B) everybody knows subDAO b is dead and therefore delegates against it; we don't want subDAO b to get any.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:09 PM
I really don't see this winner take all scenario playing out with DNT staking and DNT burning. There will always be people trying to get an outsized percentage of the delegation pot
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
wait the log function just makes every score hover around 51/49?
definitely pushes it towards a normal curve. That is the goal of every transformation. To move skewness towards zero. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:12 PM
80/20 is a 52/48 split. that just seems to make the whole v score useless
16:13
I have a pretty good handle on the numbers now. Happy to go back and forth with @JMF and others for a bit on what we want the v score to do
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I really don't see this winner take all scenario playing out with DNT staking and DNT burning. There will always be people trying to get an outsized percentage of the delegation pot
I think I agree on this point but the concern I have is that it is too easy for people to switch the delegation between subDAOs. I know it is a silly scenario, but really a single tweet from someone influential, like yourself [always pander to your audience], could cause a huge swing in delegation ratio. (edited)
Avatar
Is there a less equalizing version than square root or root?
16:15
Like a half Root lol
16:15
That a thing
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:15 PM
^.9
Avatar
Yea like 1.5 square root
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:15 PM
You can just have decimals anywhere above .5 and below 1 as your exponent (edited)
Avatar
there are some exotic transformations that have less of an effect but are definitely harder to grasp. the level of difficulty to socialize their effect would be very hard
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Yea like 1.5 square root
I like 1.37th root personally 😉
😆 1
Avatar
come on you guys, you missed 0.69 or .420
😆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:17 PM
V^0.69 isn't terrible
Avatar
if we do go sub-square root, can i suggest we bump the other numbers instead? math gets way harder to understand otherwise and "Simplifying" is in the title of this HIP
❤️ 1
Avatar
Here you go...
16:22
Arcsine transformation - Use if: 1) Data are a proportion ranging between 0.0 - 1.0 or percentage from 0 - 100. 2) Most data points are between 0.2 - 0.8 or between 20 and 80 for percentages.
16:23
ASIN(x) but it returns radians which would be confusing for most (edited)
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I think you are trying to solve for two competing scenarios that look exactly alike mathematically. A) everybody knows subDAO a is going to succeed and therefore delegates to it; but we want subDAO b to still get a little B) everybody knows subDAO b is dead and therefore delegates against it; we don't want subDAO b to get any.
Is it possible to go with sqrt for A and to sort B out by initiating some kind of forced "reboarding" with a fee by Hotspot owners if the veHNT at a subDAO is under x% for y epochs? This should bring the other part of the formula with the hotspot-count easily close to zero and with it the whole thing? Thinking of something like the forced liquidation of a zombie pennystock-company. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
if we do go sub-square root, can i suggest we bump the other numbers instead? math gets way harder to understand otherwise and "Simplifying" is in the title of this HIP
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 4:26 PM
This isn’t going in the simplifying hip though
Avatar
After reading some more, I actually think an arc sine transformation is what Max is arguing for.
16:32
The math in excel would be ( asin ( sqrt ( x ) ) – 0.2854 ) [having troubles getting it to work though; giv me some time] (edited)
Avatar
My 2 cents on this whole thing-- I think y'all are going about this the wrong way & attempting a cargo cult version of solving the problem with mathematical rigor. No one has a reasonable equation for capturing the expected value of each subDAO and/or the amt each subDAO deserves to be subsidized. If you can't solve the problem with math, you need to either delegate the decision about utility scores to people or build a market mechanism that decides things. It would be far more honest to replace the utility scores with a hard-coded kludge factor that determines how much of the pot each subDAO gets.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
After reading some more, I actually think an arc sine transformation is what Max is arguing for.
at this point, you might be serious or this might be in jest, and i have no idea which is more likely
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
This isn’t going in the simplifying hip though
oh agreed! thats my point to sub square root is all, ive got no idea how those are even calculated
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Tempcheck for vote clearly has more 👎 than 👍
Well, I’m sorry. If HIP-81 is developed to a degree that it passes tempcheck, then we can vote on that. Not sure if that is imminent. It wasn’t my idea that both HIPs might be put to vote simultaneously.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
at this point, you might be serious or this might be in jest, and i have no idea which is more likely
Actually serious. Here is the paper where I was reading about it; http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/mordkoff/GradStats/part%201/I.08%20transforms.pdf However, I can't get Excel to run the calculation correctly unless I switch it to hyperbolic arc sine but that is not what we want. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Actually serious. Here is the paper where I was reading about it; http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/mordkoff/GradStats/part%201/I.08%20transforms.pdf However, I can't get Excel to run the calculation correctly unless I switch it to hyperbolic arc sine but that is not what we want. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 6:46 PM
Did you ask chat GPT?
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Tempcheck for vote clearly has more 👎 than 👍
It’s a good thing that Temp checks are not prerequisites to voting on a HIP. Sometimes you just have to vote. If it’s competing HIPs, then so be it.
👎 1
18:58
If no further value add is present, . . . let’s just vote.
19:00
Just because something is contentious, doesn’t mean we don’t vote.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:04 PM
HIP-7 calls for some community consensus before achieving rough consensus. A nearly 2:1 vote for no seems to suggest that community consensus has not been reached.
👆 3
Avatar
It’s been asked, “What happens if both pass?” Perhaps both are nullified??? However, both passing is an unlikely scenario, but there is always a first.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP-7 calls for some community consensus before achieving rough consensus. A nearly 2:1 vote for no seems to suggest that community consensus has not been reached.
Stalemate then
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:05 PM
Putting bad HIPs up for vote in the hopes that uninformed voters vote in favor of it accomplishes what?
😂 1
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Putting bad HIPs up for vote in the hopes that uninformed voters vote in favor of it accomplishes what?
Hilarious
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Putting bad HIPs up for vote in the hopes that uninformed voters vote in favor of it accomplishes what?
just making sure bots aren't tipping the scale 😉
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:06 PM
Now it’s the bots fault?
19:09
It’s just not a well liked HIP. It was given the very very low barrier of simple majority to go to a vote. It got the lowest percentage of yes votes in the history of Helium. It’s just not ready to be voted on
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Putting bad HIPs up for vote in the hopes that uninformed voters vote in favor of it accomplishes what?
Voters can read and discern for themselves.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Voters can read and discern for themselves.
agreed
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:10 PM
They did. It lost. Badly
👆 2
19:11
The author asked for a temp check, the foundation granted it.
19:12
Should we just continually revote until we get the results we want? What are we devolving into
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They did. It lost. Badly
What amazes me about this community is, it is filled with people who see through the drama. People tweet trying to get their way, they belittle, spin, etc, but voters can read and understand for themselves.
19:14
To say that they vote in an uninformed way, is presumptuous at best.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:15 PM
Less people clicked on the link to my tweet than the margin of defeat
19:16
So even if everyone voted no it would still be no
Avatar
Welp. There you have it. Max has spoken.
19:17
I’m signing off for now.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
It’s a good thing that Temp checks are not prerequisites to voting on a HIP. Sometimes you just have to vote. If it’s competing HIPs, then so be it.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 7:17 PM
Actually... (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
It’s been asked, “What happens if both pass?” Perhaps both are nullified??? However, both passing is an unlikely scenario, but there is always a first.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 7:18 PM
lol That would be super awkward. Quick, add in "This supersedes any changes by HIP 80" to 81! 😄 (edited)
😂 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:19 PM
The community spoke. I’m happy to see what the next round of revisions brings
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
lol That would be super awkward. Quick, add in "This supersedes any changes by HIP 80" to 81! 😄 (edited)
Don’t forget to add in Max’s comment, “No one will feel like this is a rug pull.” Something like that:) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Don’t forget to add in Max’s comment, “No one will feel like this is a rug pull.” Something like that:) (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 7:20 PM
And "Give max 5000HNT."
😂 1
19:20
and a cookie 😄
😂 1
Avatar
I need a beer 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I need a beer 🙂
I need something stronger
whiskey 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:21 PM
I just wanna point out gateholder said abide by whatever the community decided
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/07/2023 7:22 PM
Avatar
Going forward Temp Checks need to be like this.
19:28
Let veHNT do the talking. It drowns out the noise.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I just wanna point out gateholder said abide by whatever the community decided
that was with a full vote
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:36 PM
It’s just like there was a HIP that passed with over 96% of the vote less than a year ago. Why are surprised that a HIP slapped together with duct tape in a week was trying to repeal that HIP was somehow unpopular? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s just like there was a HIP that passed with over 96% of the vote less than a year ago. Why are surprised that a HIP slapped together with duct tape in a week was trying to repeal that HIP was somehow unpopular? (edited)
this has been in process for months mischaracterization at best (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:40 PM
Show me the discussion about removing the A score in HIP-Discussion (edited)
19:40
Show me the github commits
19:41
You can’t gaslight people when we lived through it and there are receipts everywhere
19:41
Really bad hill for you to die on
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Show me the github commits
hip 80 is the successor of hip 78?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/07/2023 7:42 PM
78 didn’t remove the A score and throw in random plugs
19:42
I liked 78
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Should we just continually revote until we get the results we want? What are we devolving into
On the other hand there is someone texting messages close to spam rate in a nearly aggressive manner, perhaps deafening and confusing the lesser tech-savvy audience and throwing out half-baked ideas without much respect to the work and thought that had been done before. As if some short ideas, thrown out at two o'clock solves this puzzle by no means. No, what it does is confusing most people not that deep in this matter and silencing community members with different opinions but who are overwhelmed by such a flood of words. To me as a top500 token holder it is important what happens here but I don't have the impression this issue is taken on with adequate seriousness and professionalism, especially from the ones who criticise the worked out hip. The "lost" Tempcheck is no wonder given the circumstances and time pressure it was held under. First confuse everyone, then vote if we are clear enough to vote. Bad idea. Or good idea, if the plan was to prevent this hip from coming into fruition.. Perhaps some kind of moderated panel discussion between the two spokesmen of the parties in here were a better and expedient way to come to an optimal result, better than walls of emotionally loaded messages.
💯 6
🙌 2
00:09
@Max - Just Max lol you are relentless.
Avatar
So I’m looking at how the action items posted by hashc0de might be assembled into a logically consistent structure, independent of what I think of their technical merits. Please refer to the #HIP-81 channel, where I have posted a question concerning onboarding fees in that context. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1093953561970352309/1094202947283468309
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
On the other hand there is someone texting messages close to spam rate in a nearly aggressive manner, perhaps deafening and confusing the lesser tech-savvy audience and throwing out half-baked ideas without much respect to the work and thought that had been done before. As if some short ideas, thrown out at two o'clock solves this puzzle by no means. No, what it does is confusing most people not that deep in this matter and silencing community members with different opinions but who are overwhelmed by such a flood of words. To me as a top500 token holder it is important what happens here but I don't have the impression this issue is taken on with adequate seriousness and professionalism, especially from the ones who criticise the worked out hip. The "lost" Tempcheck is no wonder given the circumstances and time pressure it was held under. First confuse everyone, then vote if we are clear enough to vote. Bad idea. Or good idea, if the plan was to prevent this hip from coming into fruition.. Perhaps some kind of moderated panel discussion between the two spokesmen of the parties in here were a better and expedient way to come to an optimal result, better than walls of emotionally loaded messages.
I am wondering if it might be helpful to turn on slow mode in a hip channel like this (say e.g.: 10 mins), to "incentivize" people - to think about more what others have said before replying and - think about what they themselves are going to write and - take some time to phrase their responses better. Some posts in here appear more like unreflected, reflex-like emotional quick-shots than well-thought out texts with a non-neglibile focus on how the post may contribute to finding a solution/bringing the discussion forward. Slow mode also may reduce the amount of messages overall and may make the debate more digestible for people who allocate less time to it than to a full-time job (edited)
💯 6
Avatar
Good idea
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/08/2023 4:13 AM
Slow mode is counter productive.
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
On the other hand there is someone texting messages close to spam rate in a nearly aggressive manner, perhaps deafening and confusing the lesser tech-savvy audience and throwing out half-baked ideas without much respect to the work and thought that had been done before. As if some short ideas, thrown out at two o'clock solves this puzzle by no means. No, what it does is confusing most people not that deep in this matter and silencing community members with different opinions but who are overwhelmed by such a flood of words. To me as a top500 token holder it is important what happens here but I don't have the impression this issue is taken on with adequate seriousness and professionalism, especially from the ones who criticise the worked out hip. The "lost" Tempcheck is no wonder given the circumstances and time pressure it was held under. First confuse everyone, then vote if we are clear enough to vote. Bad idea. Or good idea, if the plan was to prevent this hip from coming into fruition.. Perhaps some kind of moderated panel discussion between the two spokesmen of the parties in here were a better and expedient way to come to an optimal result, better than walls of emotionally loaded messages.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply and furthering the discussion
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I am wondering if it might be helpful to turn on slow mode in a hip channel like this (say e.g.: 10 mins), to "incentivize" people - to think about more what others have said before replying and - think about what they themselves are going to write and - take some time to phrase their responses better. Some posts in here appear more like unreflected, reflex-like emotional quick-shots than well-thought out texts with a non-neglibile focus on how the post may contribute to finding a solution/bringing the discussion forward. Slow mode also may reduce the amount of messages overall and may make the debate more digestible for people who allocate less time to it than to a full-time job (edited)
One problem would be though I have maintained multiple discussions so if I replied to one person then get asked another question I'd have to wait (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
One problem would be though I have maintained multiple discussions so if I replied to one person then get asked another question I'd have to wait (edited)
I know it is not a perfect solution. Like many other things, the question is, do the potential advantages outweigh the potential disadvantages. In this case: is slowing down the "quick shot" writers worth it that thoughtful writers (which are on average slower in the first place anyway) need to slow down, too. The answer to that may also depend on how long a chosen time out for a slow mode is. ....and I am not saying, we "must" do this, just sharing a thought. (edited)
Avatar
Anyone who has been around for slow mode #general knows all it does is have people edit messages 73 times to respond to messages in their previous message.
😟 1
06:19
Oh, and reaction spam. Every message had hundreds of reactions, it was hilarious. (edited)
yolo 1
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
On the other hand there is someone texting messages close to spam rate in a nearly aggressive manner, perhaps deafening and confusing the lesser tech-savvy audience and throwing out half-baked ideas without much respect to the work and thought that had been done before. As if some short ideas, thrown out at two o'clock solves this puzzle by no means. No, what it does is confusing most people not that deep in this matter and silencing community members with different opinions but who are overwhelmed by such a flood of words. To me as a top500 token holder it is important what happens here but I don't have the impression this issue is taken on with adequate seriousness and professionalism, especially from the ones who criticise the worked out hip. The "lost" Tempcheck is no wonder given the circumstances and time pressure it was held under. First confuse everyone, then vote if we are clear enough to vote. Bad idea. Or good idea, if the plan was to prevent this hip from coming into fruition.. Perhaps some kind of moderated panel discussion between the two spokesmen of the parties in here were a better and expedient way to come to an optimal result, better than walls of emotionally loaded messages.
Max - Just Max 04/08/2023 8:30 AM
The HIP wasn’t good. It simply wasn’t. It was rushed and that rushed timeline just created secondary and tertiary problems as plugs got changed. Is the contention here that the waters were muddied and the people who voted were unaware this HIP was repealing HIP-51 and replacing it with a version of HIP-37 (also failed HIP).
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The HIP wasn’t good. It simply wasn’t. It was rushed and that rushed timeline just created secondary and tertiary problems as plugs got changed. Is the contention here that the waters were muddied and the people who voted were unaware this HIP was repealing HIP-51 and replacing it with a version of HIP-37 (also failed HIP).
Avatar
Thank you all very much for taking my post yesterday so positive and professional. Thank you again for all your hard work even on Easter holidays. I have a lot of confidence this is going to be sort out in a - especially for this project - very positive manner. I look forward supporting it and you with my vote, sadly I have not much else to contribute.
👍 3
Avatar
Happy Easter! My work is mostly done here. The last substantive edit to HIP-80 was 4 days ago, and I haven’t received any new suggestions how to improve it. I researched HIP-80 thoroughly, and put a lot of thought into it. I think it’s solid. I have the best coauthors, who contributed valuable insights, helped make it better, and tried to convince me to be less ambitious and find an easier target. If we tried to do too much at once, I take responsibility. Some people don’t like HIP-80. There is an alternative proposal, HIP-81. I’ve read it, and don’t completely understand it, but I’ve asked some questions https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1093953561970352309/1094411117368975570 and received some answers from one of the authors. I also proposed https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1093953561970352309/1094298181426237521 to revive HIP-78, which was my previous contribution to this effort. After digging into things and discussing them with the authors of HIP-51 and the people who are actually implementing the Solana transition, I had decided to shelve HIP-78 and replace it with HIP-80. HIP-78 is still not so bad. HIP-80 fundamentally redefines how the Helium DAO tries to balance its love between its children. Some people have a scarcity mindset, and HIP-80 scares them. Yes, 85% is less than 97%. Some people are on the other side, and look to the future. If we can have 74%, why should we make do with 59%? I don’t really have a horse in either race. I want Helium as a whole to succeed. If it does, we can all look back with a smile at whatever part we played in its beginnings. What about HIP-81? It’s a bit of a nothingburger. It specifies that there is a minimum onboarding fee for each subDAO, which hadn’t been specified before. And it makes clear that if a Hotspot doesn’t onboard for a network, it can’t participate. Aside from that, it’s pretty much HIP-51 all over again. Which is great, but we’ve learned a lot since then, and there are many things in HIP-51 that are ambiguous, which we’ve discovered as the HIP-70 team actually tries to implement everything in time for launch. HIP-81 doesn’t even touch the V factor, based on the veHNT delegations to each subDAO, because it turned out that not everybody agreed on that. It’s annoying to have the courage of your convictions, and it’s easier to kick the can down the road. JMF has recommended that we change the V factor to use a square root. He convinced me that it’s better, so I put it in HIP-80. Not for IOT, and not for MOBILE, but for the entire Helium DAO. I don’t know that it’s the best solution, but it’s the best I know. What do I know? Nobody knows, because nobody has ever build a DAO of TIPIN networks before. As of tonight, I’m not withdrawing HIP-80, because I don’t see an alternative I can support, unless you write one. HIP-80 probably needs to pass the tempcheck to go to a vote, so go add your voice. Remember, if you want to vote for it, or if you want to vote against it, it’s thumbs up. If you want to discuss it some more, thumbs down, but then you’d better hurry up and discuss. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093948548992749598 I’ll be less active here now for a bit. If you have a good idea, my DMs are open, but even better, just do what you think is right. I’m not going to follow every wrinkle of the political process now. Cover that for me if you like. HIP-81 is a bandaid. HIP-80 is a serious change, which we have worked hard on, people who lean MOBILE, people who lean IOT, and people who just lean Helium and HNT. Bandaids are easy. Change can be difficult. Read the HIPs and decide for yourself. Peace out Chris Ferebee 🐣
💯 7
🙏 5
🙌 5
👎 1
ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 04/08/2023 7:48 PM
Avatar
I think this summarizes the situation well: "HIP-81 is a bandaid. HIP-80 is a serious change" Folks that are against HIP80 think that HIP51 is just fine but requires a small modification (a bandaid).
👆 1
Avatar
Khaboom 🥂 04/09/2023 4:12 AM
@JMF Are you supporting Hip80 or 81?
Avatar
Avatar
Khaboom 🥂
@JMF Are you supporting Hip80 or 81?
he voted 👍 for hip 80 (edited)
👍🏻 2
Avatar
Avatar
Khaboom 🥂
@JMF Are you supporting Hip80 or 81?
Yea I’m throwing my weight behind 80. Neither are perfect but I think it has the necessary components to tweak in the future. Specifically the square root on V may need to be more like ^0.75 (or fill in a number) and I think we should phase out the Max calc over time to address dying SubDAOs but neither are deal breakers in the soon future imo. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good in other words. Especially when these are living documents.
👍 5
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Yea I’m throwing my weight behind 80. Neither are perfect but I think it has the necessary components to tweak in the future. Specifically the square root on V may need to be more like ^0.75 (or fill in a number) and I think we should phase out the Max calc over time to address dying SubDAOs but neither are deal breakers in the soon future imo. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good in other words. Especially when these are living documents.
They’re not though, they are final products once voted.
Avatar
Or until revised by another HIP, which to be fair, and given how this one has gone, feels like a HEAVY task
💯 1
12:35
(Also double checking my understanding there, nothing in this HIP is absolute, right?)
Avatar
Agreed, it’s a heavy task by design, but as has been shown many times already, a surmountable challenge if the argument is compelling. If we could make an adjustment in there today, I’d probably add the ^0.75. The Max function isn’t a major concern for the time being
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Or until revised by another HIP, which to be fair, and given how this one has gone, feels like a HEAVY task
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 12:45 PM
Hence the preference for a HIP that deals with things programmatically. Taking money away from anyone via a HIP is going to be a really really tough ask. Not sure why we want to set ourselves up for that down the line.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Agreed, it’s a heavy task by design, but as has been shown many times already, a surmountable challenge if the argument is compelling. If we could make an adjustment in there today, I’d probably add the ^0.75. The Max function isn’t a major concern for the time being
To what?
Avatar
Adjust token economics.
13:21
Im saying that when fixes are needed they can be made. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. Whether 80 or 81, we’re unlikely to nail this coming out of the gate.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Im saying that when fixes are needed they can be made. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. Whether 80 or 81, we’re unlikely to nail this coming out of the gate.
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 1:29 PM
We just end up in a 37 situation again though. It took over a year to get people to agree to some split for mobile. Imagine what that network would look like if it could have rewarded participants in October 2021.
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Im saying that when fixes are needed they can be made. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. Whether 80 or 81, we’re unlikely to nail this coming out of the gate.
Very true I don't see this being totally solved but this fixes the known flaws and provides incentives starting on the right foot
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 1:30 PM
Delays in onboarding subDAOs due to token split causes a non-trivial negative financial impact
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Very true I don't see this being totally solved but this fixes the known flaws and provides incentives starting on the right foot
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 1:31 PM
If you’re online you can back up the nonsense you’ve been throwing out about me
Avatar
Don’t get too far off topic though please, this thread is hard enough to follow as is 🙏
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 1:35 PM
Sorry, it’s been publicly stated that I’m allegedly against this HIP because I want to pump and dump Helium to help XNET or something. While it didn’t happen in this server, it’s insanely unprofessional to call me a “pump and dumper” over a shitty HIP
👀 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Sorry, it’s been publicly stated that I’m allegedly against this HIP because I want to pump and dump Helium to help XNET or something. While it didn’t happen in this server, it’s insanely unprofessional to call me a “pump and dumper” over a shitty HIP
FWIW, I think you are earnestly tryIng to do what is best for the development of the Helium DAO.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
FWIW, I think you are earnestly tryIng to do what is best for the development of the Helium DAO.
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 1:41 PM
I believe the same of you
Avatar
👆🏼 3
🫂 1
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Adjust token economics.
I got that, I meant to which var specifically you wanted to add the ^0.75? If it is the V I’m not against it but I do think it should be a separate HIP from 81 (edited)
13:56
And I’d be interested to hear why ^0.75 and not sqrt or log but you would probably be in the best position to write a HIP about it as that was your primary idea here.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Sorry, it’s been publicly stated that I’m allegedly against this HIP because I want to pump and dump Helium to help XNET or something. While it didn’t happen in this server, it’s insanely unprofessional to call me a “pump and dumper” over a shitty HIP
Max your right I should not have said that, but for what it's worth I am sorry.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Sorry, it’s been publicly stated that I’m allegedly against this HIP because I want to pump and dump Helium to help XNET or something. While it didn’t happen in this server, it’s insanely unprofessional to call me a “pump and dumper” over a shitty HIP
It’s unprofessional to call a HIP shitty, Max. You can disagree with a HIP without insulting the authors. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 2:36 PM
I didnt insult the author, it was brought to my attention the author was accusing me of ridiculous things and questioning my motives. I commented on the quality of the HIP. I stand by “shitty” as an accurate description of the quality (edited)
Avatar
At first sight it is very compelling to trust in the beauty of mathematics and just wipe out an relatively easy building error like hip81 does and try to conserve simplicity and beauty of 51. I love mathematics for its beauty. But it seems our learning curve went up since writing hip51 and there showed up more little holes in this hips ships hull to cover since then. To stay in this picture - nobody really knows what kind of storm is coming towards us with the transition. We make models but there are too many variables to be sure. I don't think it's worth the risk to trust only in mathematics beauty to cover these risks. In a very special situation like ours, short before a profound overhaul of the whole system, I would like to take it as safe as possible. We all should, there are millions and millions of other peoples money in this project who in fact presumably mostly don't understand this stuff. If that means to take sticks and logs and dirty lumps to close all holes before the storm is coming, which are certainly going to hold this event - very well! At least for every investor who has noteworthy amounts of money in this project. To me it's safety before beauty, and that's HIP 80. I don't mean 80 is poorly made or anything but it brings safety for (relatively) sure and why not handle the beauty afterwards when we are back in tranquille seas? When we have plenty of time and know much more of what lies ahead. And some further point - it feels a bit odd to me as an IOT-guy to vote for MOBILEs made to pay to be allowed to play with us. To me it would for sure be the right thing making them pay - don't get me wrong - but I think they should decide so on their own, as a subDAO. Not being forced so by an overwhelming but not directly financially affected majority. They should feel the effect of not being onboarded correctly and decide so on their own.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
At first sight it is very compelling to trust in the beauty of mathematics and just wipe out an relatively easy building error like hip81 does and try to conserve simplicity and beauty of 51. I love mathematics for its beauty. But it seems our learning curve went up since writing hip51 and there showed up more little holes in this hips ships hull to cover since then. To stay in this picture - nobody really knows what kind of storm is coming towards us with the transition. We make models but there are too many variables to be sure. I don't think it's worth the risk to trust only in mathematics beauty to cover these risks. In a very special situation like ours, short before a profound overhaul of the whole system, I would like to take it as safe as possible. We all should, there are millions and millions of other peoples money in this project who in fact presumably mostly don't understand this stuff. If that means to take sticks and logs and dirty lumps to close all holes before the storm is coming, which are certainly going to hold this event - very well! At least for every investor who has noteworthy amounts of money in this project. To me it's safety before beauty, and that's HIP 80. I don't mean 80 is poorly made or anything but it brings safety for (relatively) sure and why not handle the beauty afterwards when we are back in tranquille seas? When we have plenty of time and know much more of what lies ahead. And some further point - it feels a bit odd to me as an IOT-guy to vote for MOBILEs made to pay to be allowed to play with us. To me it would for sure be the right thing making them pay - don't get me wrong - but I think they should decide so on their own, as a subDAO. Not being forced so by an overwhelming but not directly financially affected majority. They should feel the effect of not being onboarded correctly and decide so on their own.
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 2:49 PM
Both HIPs would require a minimum onboard
14:50
One uses an arbitrary number, another scales as the amount of HNT being emitted decreases (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Both HIPs would require a minimum onboard
Correct. What a pity I can't have everything. The world would be a better place, at least for me 🤪
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 2:51 PM
81 gives the subDAOs more freedom to govern themselves
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
81 gives the subDAOs more freedom to govern themselves
Maybe. But they are like children leaving home. Better to care a bit too much in the beginning and giving more free room to wiggle later on. We are all here for the long run, especially with the new veHNT rules and no hip is written in stone
👆🏼 1
14:57
Especially while we don't really know what comes after transition with it being a multi-variable-event
14:58
My point is fir the time being: safety first. If that means hard coded ceilings and bottoms, so be it. I would love to change it later on to something very flexible. But not now, days before the big thing
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 2:59 PM
Wouldn’t that mean you want the option that changes the least amount of stuff, not the complete overhaul?
👆 2
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/09/2023 3:07 PM
Just joined tonight, 2nd person to do that 😂 (edited)
Avatar
No. You frame it wrong. Noone knows if 51 is gonna work like planned. But smart guys found errors or at least possible problems which were addressed in 80 and 81. In 80 they try to fix them by adjusting values, formulas and multiplicators, in 81 you try to correct the values and leave the formulas because of the beauty of mathematics, if you allow me to frame it like that, but that's not a sufficient reason to me. Feels less safe than 80s approach.
15:13
And safety is prime for what's at stake
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Just joined tonight, 2nd person to do that 😂 (edited)
People’s tweets can encourage people to become engaged, even new ones. For example, if I have a friend who has a validator set up through a service, but he is not active on discord, . . . Just because he signs up today doesn’t mean that his opinion doesn’t matter. Given the rhetoric in this “debate”, some people are beginning to question motives. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 3:35 PM
My motive is clearly to take down helium from the inside to help XNET, my personal favorite of the DeWi networks lol
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
My motive is clearly to take down helium from the inside to help XNET, my personal favorite of the DeWi networks lol
I heard that somewhere. Shame on you.coolcry (edited)
15:37
This comment of shame on you was meant to be a joke. A Funny. Please don’t misinterpret (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
People’s tweets can encourage people to become engaged, even new ones. For example, if I have a friend who has a validator set up through a service, but he is not active on discord, . . . Just because he signs up today doesn’t mean that his opinion doesn’t matter. Given the rhetoric in this “debate”, some people are beginning to question motives. (edited)
I read a lot on discord but being a MD myself and having two "real world" companys on three locations to lead I have little time to post in here regularly. I hope that doesn't diminish my two cents. On a regular basis I have lots of trust in this really smart and engaged community. But, as you say, the rhetoric over the last days got out of hand and I thought perhaps my outside view could help coming back on track, at least a little bit.
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
I read a lot on discord but being a MD myself and having two "real world" companys on three locations to lead I have little time to post in here regularly. I hope that doesn't diminish my two cents. On a regular basis I have lots of trust in this really smart and engaged community. But, as you say, the rhetoric over the last days got out of hand and I thought perhaps my outside view could help coming back on track, at least a little bit.
I love it. Your Specialty?
Avatar
Teeth 😅
💯 1
😁 1
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
Teeth 😅
Nice. RadOnc here. Y’all need to see my head and necks faster BTW.
Avatar
Wow that's serious business you are in, my outmost respect!
💜 1
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
No. You frame it wrong. Noone knows if 51 is gonna work like planned. But smart guys found errors or at least possible problems which were addressed in 80 and 81. In 80 they try to fix them by adjusting values, formulas and multiplicators, in 81 you try to correct the values and leave the formulas because of the beauty of mathematics, if you allow me to frame it like that, but that's not a sufficient reason to me. Feels less safe than 80s approach.
I have to disagree. HIP80 is trying to guess the answers of post-migration and correct it pre-migration. HIP81 is taking the approach that we don't know how it will play out, so let's just correct the glaring error in what has happened; that is, mobile gateways did not pay an onboarding fee to the subDAO.
16:02
I would have preferred to give HIP81 the title of "STFU and pay your onboarding invoice".
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:03 PM
They didn’t let me name it
16:04
I was originally going to name it “make Keith pay”
🤘 1
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
No. You frame it wrong. Noone knows if 51 is gonna work like planned. But smart guys found errors or at least possible problems which were addressed in 80 and 81. In 80 they try to fix them by adjusting values, formulas and multiplicators, in 81 you try to correct the values and leave the formulas because of the beauty of mathematics, if you allow me to frame it like that, but that's not a sufficient reason to me. Feels less safe than 80s approach.
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:18 PM
Can you clarify which values you believe are being corrected in 81?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I would have preferred to give HIP81 the title of "STFU and pay your onboarding invoice".
That's emotionally compelling and understandable. But this at least partially emotional driven motivation led to the stalemate we find us now in. With your other point I tend to disagree. The motivations outlined in 80 go beyond just putting bandaid on an earlier miss. Long story short: "STFU" doesn't bring peace to a community.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:20 PM
Keith was joking…
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can you clarify which values you believe are being corrected in 81?
Yes. Changing the value of paid onboarding fee from zero to larger than zero. That's a value and it's wanted to be changed.
❌ 1
16:22
I am sorry if my English isn't perfect, by value I meant the value of a variable in a formula. If that was unclear. And you want this value to be changed - or not?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:22 PM
The value was never zero in HIP-51 or 53 though. It was 40. Requiring a minimum below that pre stated number to allow for new devices with lower onboard costs to be added later. Under the current implementation, you wouldn’t be able to have a $100 gateway without paying $40 to onboard it. (edited)
16:24
It also puts pressure on the mobile subDAO to either onboard their devices as they stated they would in HIP-53 or get slashed.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The value was never zero in HIP-51 or 53 though. It was 40. Requiring a minimum below that pre stated number to allow for new devices with lower onboard costs to be added later. Under the current implementation, you wouldn’t be able to have a $100 gateway without paying $40 to onboard it. (edited)
You speak of the value that should have been paid per Hotspot. I (and you in 81) speak of the value of in reality paid onboarding fees that should be changed. Sorry I don't know why I have to tell you the main points of your own hip?
16:27
And I did understand both texts very well. Thank you. The problem we have here is not my understanding of hips but that we need a solution to this stalemate, ASAP. And as far as I can see there is no standard procedure outlined for such a situation with no time to go on the clock.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:27 PM
They were supposed to pay under HIP-53, they didn’t. The numbers in 81 doesn’t change mobile’s number
Avatar
Avatar
JMF
Yea I’m throwing my weight behind 80. Neither are perfect but I think it has the necessary components to tweak in the future. Specifically the square root on V may need to be more like ^0.75 (or fill in a number) and I think we should phase out the Max calc over time to address dying SubDAOs but neither are deal breakers in the soon future imo. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good in other words. Especially when these are living documents.
Khaboom 🥂 04/09/2023 4:29 PM
Thank you for your response @JMF. The reason I’m asking is this… I’ve spent quite a bit of time (many hours) reading this thread, sometimes ad nauseam. 😂 To give a brief background, I’ve been an entrepreneur my whole life in many industries, including 12 years in the wireless industry where I also had a carrier license. My summation is that the HIPs can’t address the entire issues in writing or via mathematics. There is always a ‘human nature’ element that is involved that can’t be always be defined or quantified, especially thru mathematics. Human nature is sometimes irrational or many times based on fear. This project, or any company, must understand the human nature that exists and the perception that they perceive, as they are mostly ignorant to all the facts as they are on the outside looking in.
16:29
With that said, IMO there needs to be some protection for IOT, otherwise I feel it looks kind of like a bait and switch. I agree MOBILE will be more robust and most likely have a faster ramp up than IOT. I’m a very “open market” type of thinker, but to not have some sort of protection fir IOT, I feel it will leave a negative perception for the public and community, which will in turn have negative effects on the project. I feel 4 years is a long time for protection, but I’m not as versed as others in this group on this subject, just my opinion. Perhaps a shorter protection period of 1 or 2 years would suffice. Also, as for the math issue, instead of using square root or log type functions, could we employ a ‘bracket’ type of equation, kind like the way federal taxes work. Higher brackets have higher adjustments. The math would be easier… In conclusion, there are many great contributors to this and I’ve read and respect all here! In particular, @Max - Just Max does have some valid points, however, IMO @JMF has the over reaching grasp on all the issues involved. There is no perfect solution here, and there will be following HIPs to improve and perhaps fix some mistakes along the way. With that said, I’ll be supporting HIP 80, and I hope there will be anther HIP shortly to address any of the HIP 80 shortcomings. I want to thank everyone for all their time and input. Always important to see all different angles of a problem. Good luck to us all! Best, David
👍 1
💯 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:29 PM
Surgically solving the onboard problem by clearly stating that it must happen or else the repercussions will be slashing (approved under HIP-51) is the much easier way to solve the issue witb so little time on the clock compared to completely changing everything and adding random numbers to get to a result that feels right today with little forethought about tomorrow
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
They were supposed to pay under HIP-53, they didn’t. The numbers in 81 doesn’t change mobile’s number
It changes the value of paid onboarding fees because after 81 there will be paid onboarding fees so the value changes from zero to larger than zero and the formula doesn't get zeroed out bzw. this part doesn't jump to 1. Is this now an exam about 81? This has been discussed enough, please don't try to invalidate my position with rhetoric tricks like trying to overwhelm me with detail questions when my goal is to bring this whole thing off this slippery slope.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:38 PM
The A score has a max (1,...) function though. It does jump to 1 if the onboard amount is 0.
16:39
81 also further defines the previously ambiguous term "active device"
Avatar
Avatar
Khaboom 🥂
With that said, IMO there needs to be some protection for IOT, otherwise I feel it looks kind of like a bait and switch. I agree MOBILE will be more robust and most likely have a faster ramp up than IOT. I’m a very “open market” type of thinker, but to not have some sort of protection fir IOT, I feel it will leave a negative perception for the public and community, which will in turn have negative effects on the project. I feel 4 years is a long time for protection, but I’m not as versed as others in this group on this subject, just my opinion. Perhaps a shorter protection period of 1 or 2 years would suffice. Also, as for the math issue, instead of using square root or log type functions, could we employ a ‘bracket’ type of equation, kind like the way federal taxes work. Higher brackets have higher adjustments. The math would be easier… In conclusion, there are many great contributors to this and I’ve read and respect all here! In particular, @Max - Just Max does have some valid points, however, IMO @JMF has the over reaching grasp on all the issues involved. There is no perfect solution here, and there will be following HIPs to improve and perhaps fix some mistakes along the way. With that said, I’ll be supporting HIP 80, and I hope there will be anther HIP shortly to address any of the HIP 80 shortcomings. I want to thank everyone for all their time and input. Always important to see all different angles of a problem. Good luck to us all! Best, David
You put it very well, I am feeling alike with comparable time as an entrepreneur in different field. I don't find any problem in protecting a subDAO for some time, at last isn't the Helium DAO something like a vc to its subDAOs ? So give it some time to flourish and don't be so hard with your little million hotspot baby! 😅
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The A score has a max (1,...) function though. It does jump to 1 if the onboard amount is 0.
Are you kidding me? That's what I wrote!? Edit: Sorry reread my message, autocorrect changed my does to doesn't and I didn't realise. Haven't edit it out now for later ones understanding the thread (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:41 PM
I'm just trying to understand the misunderstanding you may be having with HIP-81 so it can be updated to further clarify some of these things.
16:42
I'm not sure what you mean by this then
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I'm not sure what you mean by this then
Edit 👍sry
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:43 PM
ahh okay that makes more sense then
16:44
how do we vote on the v score piece in this HIP. It was going to be added to 81 but there was no consensus on that. I don't understand this argument that we should just pass something we know is incorrect and fix it later when nothing breaks if we don't pass it.
Avatar
Autocorrect is a pita since 2 or 3 years. Don't know why we have sth like chatGPT now but autocorrect getting more and more absurd 😅
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
Autocorrect is a pita since 2 or 3 years. Don't know why we have sth like chatGPT now but autocorrect getting more and more absurd 😅
Khaboom 🥂 04/09/2023 4:46 PM
Autocorrect lowers your perceived IQ by at least 20 points. 😂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:47 PM
sorry if it seems like i'm quizzing you on 81. I've had multiple people ask if this means they have to pay an additional onboard fee which points to some miscommunication on part of the HIP. Just trying to get any potential misunderstandings buttoned up to make it easier to understand
Avatar
No, 81 is plain and simple to understand.
👍 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:49 PM
Thanks, tight turnaround on that one so I want to make sure nothing is getting missed or miscommunicated
Avatar
Did I say it isn't plain and simple? No. More like its too simple and therefore too risky, at least in my view.
😆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 4:58 PM
No, I was thanking you for your input
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
how do we vote on the v score piece in this HIP. It was going to be added to 81 but there was no consensus on that. I don't understand this argument that we should just pass something we know is incorrect and fix it later when nothing breaks if we don't pass it.
The foundational problem is, to my understanding, we have a important formula in which all three factors are of very different magnitudes and they have to be normalised for being comparable. The plan is now to do this by roots or logs. That should work and would be fine by me for the time being because it should work even if not pretty. Possible in a near future a smart guy comes up with a smarter and cleaner method of normalisation. Everyone would be slapping their heads by how simple it is. Very well, have another hip. But right now I don't see anyone with this idea. Until that, or until the magnitude of a factor changes, we would have a reliable solution with 80 which as a side effect would protect our "slow child" iot being eaten by the wolves of market.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 5:05 PM
The V is being square rooted to avoid a “winner take all” scenario. As we’ve discussed it more, we realize that’s not a likely scenario which is why it’s being walked back. There are similar incorrect assumptions in this HIP that make it problematic. “We’ll just change it later” is a great attitude to have but historically anything that changes people’s earnings is insanely difficult to change. We tried with HIP-37 and it was met with so much negative sentiment that it had to be scrapped for HIP-51
Avatar
I don't want to discuss it all over again, we should go further and find a compromise, sth everyone can live with even if not perfect in any way. What about, just out of my head, a fixed revision epoch with defined goals and variables like "if x doesn't stay in boundaries y and z there should be a change to v" or just "to be revisioned after one year"
17:07
Not likely and incorrect are very different adjectives.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 5:09 PM
I’m not arguing it should never change. I’m arguing it’s not ready at this point and we shouldn’t just use the migration as a reason to push it through before it is
Avatar
Not taking action on found problems, if possible, because of unlikeliness can easily be careless.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 5:10 PM
HIP-81 takes action on the found problems
17:10
It literally just takes care of the pressing matters
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP-81 takes action on the found problems
You said -and I paraphrase - differences between 80 and 81 were walked back because of unlikelieness
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
At first sight it is very compelling to trust in the beauty of mathematics and just wipe out an relatively easy building error like hip81 does and try to conserve simplicity and beauty of 51. I love mathematics for its beauty. But it seems our learning curve went up since writing hip51 and there showed up more little holes in this hips ships hull to cover since then. To stay in this picture - nobody really knows what kind of storm is coming towards us with the transition. We make models but there are too many variables to be sure. I don't think it's worth the risk to trust only in mathematics beauty to cover these risks. In a very special situation like ours, short before a profound overhaul of the whole system, I would like to take it as safe as possible. We all should, there are millions and millions of other peoples money in this project who in fact presumably mostly don't understand this stuff. If that means to take sticks and logs and dirty lumps to close all holes before the storm is coming, which are certainly going to hold this event - very well! At least for every investor who has noteworthy amounts of money in this project. To me it's safety before beauty, and that's HIP 80. I don't mean 80 is poorly made or anything but it brings safety for (relatively) sure and why not handle the beauty afterwards when we are back in tranquille seas? When we have plenty of time and know much more of what lies ahead. And some further point - it feels a bit odd to me as an IOT-guy to vote for MOBILEs made to pay to be allowed to play with us. To me it would for sure be the right thing making them pay - don't get me wrong - but I think they should decide so on their own, as a subDAO. Not being forced so by an overwhelming but not directly financially affected majority. They should feel the effect of not being onboarded correctly and decide so on their own.
How is HIP 80 beautiful? It uses arbitrary price floors based on imperfect modeling?
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
How is HIP 80 beautiful? It uses arbitrary price floors based on imperfect modeling?
Never said that.
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
You said -and I paraphrase - differences between 80 and 81 were walked back because of unlikelieness
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 5:13 PM
I honestly don’t even know what you’re referring to here but have a good night. I appreciate your feedback
Avatar
Nighty night
Avatar
How is this HIP going to be decided? Will it come to a vote?
Avatar
Thanks for discussion. But at last, the main problem here for the moment is how this stalemate is going to be solved and we need input on that point. The channels 80 and 81 got quiet because of Easter and certainly because the discussions go in circles. Would it be possible to have a "temp check" between 80 and 81 and put the winner to a vote?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I honestly don’t even know what you’re referring to here but have a good night. I appreciate your feedback
I put it in another way: The authors of 81 decide if scenarios 80 plans for are unlikely enough to not take care of them. These authors have no liability for the millions investors have put in the token at stake (and rightly so!) but have they taken this massive responsibility in account in a sufficient manner? Would they have played down these scenarios also if they were personally liable for all these millions? I don't think so and that's why I go with the not so pretty but safer 80. Personal opinion. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
mc300
The foundational problem is, to my understanding, we have a important formula in which all three factors are of very different magnitudes and they have to be normalised for being comparable. The plan is now to do this by roots or logs. That should work and would be fine by me for the time being because it should work even if not pretty. Possible in a near future a smart guy comes up with a smarter and cleaner method of normalisation. Everyone would be slapping their heads by how simple it is. Very well, have another hip. But right now I don't see anyone with this idea. Until that, or until the magnitude of a factor changes, we would have a reliable solution with 80 which as a side effect would protect our "slow child" iot being eaten by the wolves of market.
I just don’t see it as fair that one network will have onboards fees forgiven while the other had to pay them. Providing a “safety net” beyond the head start that has lasted longer than planned is a disservice to IoT. This will only cause our “slow child” to further remain dependent on PoC rather than allowing them to continue forth. This kid will end up living at home til we die. Lol. If mobile can quickly outshine IoT so be it. This will bring added value to hnt as well. Adjusting the v score isn’t my main concern with hip 80 it’s that along with that we need to accept 1. Onboards are never burned for all 5g devices to date. 2. IoT will be given an unfair floor at the expense of other networks growth and development.
👍 1
17:34
If we see IoT is not doing well we can just as easily add a floor as we can make changes as proposed in hip80 (edited)
Avatar
These dueling HIPs have grown controversial, divisive, and some suggest that a select few may have acted in a clandestine way. I’m not going there without proof. I recall “drama” associated with HIPs 70 and HIP39. We got past that with a vote despite opposition. It’s reasonable to submit both for a vote. Let the community decide. Voters can discern for themselves what they believe is the right way to go.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
How is this HIP going to be decided? Will it come to a vote?
I think that's the logical conclusion, have both up to vote preferable hip 80 goes tomorrow and 81 Tues or wedsday
👍 1
Avatar
Another_AKA 04/09/2023 9:22 PM
Since the two HIPs have some overlap, how about a vote between HIP 80 vs 81. Winner gets another vote for community approval?
21:22
Too much? Everyone loves voting. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Another_AKA
Since the two HIPs have some overlap, how about a vote between HIP 80 vs 81. Winner gets another vote for community approval?
I just don't think we have time... hip 80 really needs implementation before Noah asked for 3-4 days
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I just don't think we have time... hip 80 really needs implementation before Noah asked for 3-4 days
Another_AKA 04/09/2023 9:35 PM
So if both go up to vote and both 'pass', what happens?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think that's the logical conclusion, have both up to vote preferable hip 80 goes tomorrow and 81 Tues or wedsday
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 9:36 PM
Avatar
Well in that scenario I would think that hip 81 supercedes 80... that in my mind would be proper procedure
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 9:38 PM
Avatar
But it would only replace the pices that conflict with each other which would be hard to sort out
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 9:39 PM
Avatar
Another_AKA 04/09/2023 9:45 PM
It is interesting that temp checks can prevent a vote? A non-verifiable method can stop a verifiable method. And temp checks do not have any HNT backing them like a real vote. Temp checks probably need to go away if they can stop a HIP all by themselves. They are in effect 'the vote'.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 9:47 PM
All voted for the HIP. Weird
🤔 1
21:47
Still lost lol
Avatar
Another_AKA 04/09/2023 9:48 PM
So we do temp checks kinda like one device = one vote now. One username = one vote. Who needs to worry about whales.
21:48
lol
21:49
Forgot, I have two discord usernames. I'll get on that vote.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
All voted for the HIP. Weird
I'm glad I was able to bring several new people into helium 😉
😆 1
Avatar
Temp check can be anyone voting. A legit vote on the other hand. Needs helium to be able to cast a vote. Most random people wont put in the effort to cast the vote if thats the case. I think we should just vote on both hip and go from there. Then trying to cancel a hip base on 👍 👎 number. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/09/2023 9:52 PM
No one is cancelling it, it’s just not ready
👍 2
21:57
If people have 10 weeks of runway because of their own poor decisions, it’s not up to the Helium network to bail them out.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
I just don’t see it as fair that one network will have onboards fees forgiven while the other had to pay them. Providing a “safety net” beyond the head start that has lasted longer than planned is a disservice to IoT. This will only cause our “slow child” to further remain dependent on PoC rather than allowing them to continue forth. This kid will end up living at home til we die. Lol. If mobile can quickly outshine IoT so be it. This will bring added value to hnt as well. Adjusting the v score isn’t my main concern with hip 80 it’s that along with that we need to accept 1. Onboards are never burned for all 5g devices to date. 2. IoT will be given an unfair floor at the expense of other networks growth and development.
With all due respect if we presented hip 51 the way you are right now with what we know now , the hip probably wouldn’t pass. Also you assume the network wouldn’t die off rapidly. If mobile took off and iot didn’t have protections lights out within a year. There would be virtually no incentive to keep hotspots up.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
With all due respect if we presented hip 51 the way you are right now with what we know now , the hip probably wouldn’t pass. Also you assume the network wouldn’t die off rapidly. If mobile took off and iot didn’t have protections lights out within a year. There would be virtually no incentive to keep hotspots up.
I think the main difference is protection for protections sake, and protection because of something it did (e.g. burn $40M onboarding fees).
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think the main difference is protection for protections sake, and protection because of something it did (e.g. burn $40M onboarding fees).
That’s part of “what we know now”, but protection for the sake of it is needed to some extent as well. Imo otherwise you will leave a lot of investors with a bitter taste. Maybe that’s fine for some. Not me. 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
That’s part of “what we know now”, but protection for the sake of it is needed to some extent as well. Imo otherwise you will leave a lot of investors with a bitter taste. Maybe that’s fine for some. Not me. 🤷‍♂️
The wide gap between onboarding fees is recognized by HIP51 formula (and thus HIP81) as well. I don't think HIP80 nor HIP81 wants to have IOT die, it's mostly the way of doing it that's different.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The wide gap between onboarding fees is recognized by HIP51 formula (and thus HIP81) as well. I don't think HIP80 nor HIP81 wants to have IOT die, it's mostly the way of doing it that's different.
It is jus my personal perception of what’s to come for iot, unless we grow 25x faster than expected. Once mobile burns dc for onboarding and it catches fire. The 51 formula is going to swing excessively to mobile. I hate to sound doomsday but eventually the iot incentive just won’t be there anymore. Imo obviously. No matter the intentions of these hips unless there is an perceptually unfair floor. Iot incentive is barely hanging in as is lol (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
It is jus my personal perception of what’s to come for iot, unless we grow 25x faster than expected. Once mobile burns dc for onboarding and it catches fire. The 51 formula is going to swing excessively to mobile. I hate to sound doomsday but eventually the iot incentive just won’t be there anymore. Imo obviously. No matter the intentions of these hips unless there is an perceptually unfair floor. Iot incentive is barely hanging in as is lol (edited)
It might be very philosophical but I'm very much ok with MOBILE getting more of the pie as it starts earning that, but having the arbitrary floors create misaligned incentives. If you give a floor the way HIP80 proposes there is an incentive to knock it out of the park, or do nothing (because then the floor will protect you). I think that's a bad situation that is avoided by HIP51 formulas which are much more gradual and protect the $40M DC burn that IOT has done while still incentivizing all subDAOs to do the best they can (and be rewarded for that). If at the end of the day we have subDAO A burn $10M monthly and subDAO B burn $10k monthly, of course the subDAO A should be rewarded for that.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It might be very philosophical but I'm very much ok with MOBILE getting more of the pie as it starts earning that, but having the arbitrary floors create misaligned incentives. If you give a floor the way HIP80 proposes there is an incentive to knock it out of the park, or do nothing (because then the floor will protect you). I think that's a bad situation that is avoided by HIP51 formulas which are much more gradual and protect the $40M DC burn that IOT has done while still incentivizing all subDAOs to do the best they can (and be rewarded for that). If at the end of the day we have subDAO A burn $10M monthly and subDAO B burn $10k monthly, of course the subDAO A should be rewarded for that.
Definitely philosophical because we wouldn’t have the investment to do any of this without the valuation of the iot network originally. The worst part about it, it’s not win win. Someone is going to have to lose and it’s most likely a large chunk of the iot mining community.
01:24
I see the other side as well.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Definitely philosophical because we wouldn’t have the investment to do any of this without the valuation of the iot network originally. The worst part about it, it’s not win win. Someone is going to have to lose and it’s most likely a large chunk of the iot mining community.
So how HIP51 incorporates that into the math is by rewarding the enormous burn that the IOT network has created by building this network. At the end of the day in a zero sum game someone always has to lose HNT, that's a fact. The idea is though, that you don't have to lose value as the network of networks becomes more valuable as a whole.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
So how HIP51 incorporates that into the math is by rewarding the enormous burn that the IOT network has created by building this network. At the end of the day in a zero sum game someone always has to lose HNT, that's a fact. The idea is though, that you don't have to lose value as the network of networks becomes more valuable as a whole.
Hnt becomes more valuable but iot loses value overall value doesn’t necessarily make up for any of that. That is the crypto project talking point lol
Avatar
My (possibly philosophical) position is that it isn't more than fair that a subDAO that brings more to the table gets more of the pie. That is, as long as it also keeps in mind some discounted value that a subDAO has historically brought to the table. The historical value is represented by the A factor that HIP80 has removed and HIP51 (and 81) still has.
Avatar
You just continually lose value
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Hnt becomes more valuable but iot loses value overall value doesn’t necessarily make up for any of that. That is the crypto project talking point lol
50% of something is more than a 100% of nothing is I think the best explanation I can give within the rules 😉
Avatar
40million burn is drop in bucket for mobile hence iot death lol
Avatar
Avatar
groot
50% of something is more than a 100% of nothing is I think the best explanation I can give within the rules 😉
I know the talking point. Lol
Avatar
Avatar
groot
My (possibly philosophical) position is that it isn't more than fair that a subDAO that brings more to the table gets more of the pie. That is, as long as it also keeps in mind some discounted value that a subDAO has historically brought to the table. The historical value is represented by the A factor that HIP80 has removed and HIP51 (and 81) still has.
I get it man I get it.
01:31
It sucks
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
40million burn is drop in bucket for mobile hence iot death lol
I don't think 80PB is a drop in the bucket, I'm sure it will be done but it isn't done in a day.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't think 80PB is a drop in the bucket, I'm sure it will be done but it isn't done in a day.
It’s going to happen faster than people think.
01:34
Instead of sensor the user of the network is a phone which everyone uses.
01:35
And you can launder you’re dnt back into your wallet. Lol
Avatar
It takes a (single) radio 4 years of 24/7 50Mbps to get there.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
And you can launder you’re dnt back into your wallet. Lol
This isn't an argument since it holds for any subDAO
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
This isn't an argument since it holds for any subDAO
It is because it’s the difference between the devices used. Not everyone has sensors nor wants to use them. But everyone wants to use a phone and people could pretty much get a huge discount. Get paid to use your phone at home.
01:38
But I get the gist of what you meant
Avatar
Avatar
Another_AKA
It is interesting that temp checks can prevent a vote? A non-verifiable method can stop a verifiable method. And temp checks do not have any HNT backing them like a real vote. Temp checks probably need to go away if they can stop a HIP all by themselves. They are in effect 'the vote'.
Or temp checks need to be voted upon with ve-Tokens, once the system is in place
Avatar
A lot is being said about the temperature check. I think some participants are confusing it with the actual vote, considering how they are canvassing thumbprints from people not involved in the discussion. This goes for both sides of the 80/81 aisle. All of this is convention, and no hard and fast rules have been written down. I think the point of a tempcheck is to distinguish two situations. 1. The HIP is fully developed, clear, unambiguous. It’s straightforward to form an opinion on it. Whether it’s “good” and will improve the chances that Helium will be a huge success, and/or be good for each individual participant. Or whether it’s “bad” and will harm Helium as a whole, or an individual’s prospects. (It’s fine to vote for something that’s good for you but bad for other people.) 2. The HIP needs more work before it can be voted on, because things about it need to be added, or removed, or changed, or clarified. To see my views on HIP-81 in this regard, follow the first link in my pinned post here from yesterday. In my view, HIP-81 has ambiguities, and deliberately leaves things unclear that are unclear in HIP-51. Still, it does answer some questions, and it's better than nothing. As to HIP-80, I think it’s absolutely ready for a vote. Why? Because it’s been nearly a week since I received any substantive suggestion how HIP-80 should be improved, modified, or clarified. It seems to be clear and unambiguous. Much of the discussion since then has been: Is HIP-80 the best we’ve got, or is it “shitty”, to quote one participant? Deciding that is what the actual vote is for.
👆 4
💯 4
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Definitely philosophical because we wouldn’t have the investment to do any of this without the valuation of the iot network originally. The worst part about it, it’s not win win. Someone is going to have to lose and it’s most likely a large chunk of the iot mining community.
Thanks for your input, but in a net shell yes. I personally don't mind networks that do well subsidizing networks that are struggling. That is why this hip inherently supports both new and existing ideas. And in my opinion if there is a "leach" then it needs to be voted out and I can't really see a reason that it wouldn't happen (edited)
Avatar
Wen Vote
06:44
A decision regarding a vote needs to be done today.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
It is because it’s the difference between the devices used. Not everyone has sensors nor wants to use them. But everyone wants to use a phone and people could pretty much get a huge discount. Get paid to use your phone at home.
Brainstormer 04/10/2023 7:53 AM
that's a misconception that with mobile you can have a radio at home and use the phone for free. the carriers will dictate where the radio can go and get rewarded, it makes no sense to have a radio at home.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Or temp checks need to be voted upon with ve-Tokens, once the system is in place
Another_AKA 04/10/2023 8:11 AM
Funny thing, I think the temp check on HIP 80 has more 'votes' than any other temp check (not researched, just going by memory).
🤣 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
that's a misconception that with mobile you can have a radio at home and use the phone for free. the carriers will dictate where the radio can go and get rewarded, it makes no sense to have a radio at home.
You should absolutely be able to "essentially" have free service and if you cover a good chunk of a neighborhood then there is earning potential there especially if you sign up your neighbors. Which is what we should be incentivizing
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
It is because it’s the difference between the devices used. Not everyone has sensors nor wants to use them. But everyone wants to use a phone and people could pretty much get a huge discount. Get paid to use your phone at home.
You don’t get paid to use your phone. As of now you won’t even recover what you put in. Another difference is that helium mobile has a lot more competition than IoT. There are plenty of cheap mvnos already.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
You should absolutely be able to "essentially" have free service and if you cover a good chunk of a neighborhood then there is earning potential there especially if you sign up your neighbors. Which is what we should be incentivizing
Everyone uses wi fi at home. To earn you would have to sign up people that are in your neighborhood but don’t live there.
08:15
An operator may disable it on their own phone but customers won’t. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It takes a (single) radio 4 years of 24/7 50Mbps to get there.
I think your math is off here, a radio transmitting at 50mbps -> 6.25 mb/sec -> 375 mb/min -> 22 gb/hr which then translates as $11/hr for 1/4 of the radios capacity which means you can pay back your radio in a couple weeks for super locations. Now this is going to be far from the norm tbh
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
You should absolutely be able to "essentially" have free service and if you cover a good chunk of a neighborhood then there is earning potential there especially if you sign up your neighbors. Which is what we should be incentivizing
Brainstormer 04/10/2023 8:27 AM
if your covered hex happens to be one that service provider want. we are talking about PoC rewards here
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
if your covered hex happens to be one that service provider want. we are talking about PoC rewards here
Yes you should be able to flag a usable area I'm full against disabling a radio site but the burden should then be wither to wait for mobile to come to you or create desirability in that area.
08:32
I've also been thinking of ramps to ween bad installs while not being to harsh but that's out of scope for this channel
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Yes you should be able to flag a usable area I'm full against disabling a radio site but the burden should then be wither to wait for mobile to come to you or create desirability in that area.
Brainstormer 04/10/2023 8:32 AM
so you're still saying that having a radio at home and using that for free service make sense?
08:33
Because that's my response to him and you jumped in to say otherwise (edited)
Avatar
I mean if it's the only house or "common" area of course not but even most suburbs have use cases
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/10/2023 8:35 AM
I'm glad you agree that it doesn't make sense for personal use
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think your math is off here, a radio transmitting at 50mbps -> 6.25 mb/sec -> 375 mb/min -> 22 gb/hr which then translates as $11/hr for 1/4 of the radios capacity which means you can pay back your radio in a couple weeks for super locations. Now this is going to be far from the norm tbh
I think you misread what you’re replying to
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Thanks for your input, but in a net shell yes. I personally don't mind networks that do well subsidizing networks that are struggling. That is why this hip inherently supports both new and existing ideas. And in my opinion if there is a "leach" then it needs to be voted out and I can't really see a reason that it wouldn't happen (edited)
Thanks for your kind response 👍😁
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
that's a misconception that with mobile you can have a radio at home and use the phone for free. the carriers will dictate where the radio can go and get rewarded, it makes no sense to have a radio at home.
Thanks for the correction. I was assuming the radios would work like iot gateways “if your the closest you will be used”.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
You don’t get paid to use your phone. As of now you won’t even recover what you put in. Another difference is that helium mobile has a lot more competition than IoT. There are plenty of cheap mvnos already.
I was under the assumption these radios were used like gateways. Thx for the clarification.
Avatar
vote GM, GA, GE!! HIP 80 and 81 are open for a vote and will be open for 5 days! Please read the entirety of the announcement in #announcements and cast both of your votes on helium.vote
👍 3
valerie pinned a message to this channel. 04/10/2023 9:01 PM
Avatar
Joey 0x00003C 04/10/2023 10:05 PM
Seeing a good number of 'No' votes on both HIPs. Worth noting,
If both fail to reach a super majority (2/3 vote power), the original DAO Utility Score specified in HIP 51 will be implemented.
(edited)
Avatar
Just for my understanding. HIP80 is mainly focused on the 5G network and not on the lora network? (edited)
Avatar
Checking the voting detail text and the hip briefly, I could not get its impact on IoT too. If there is an impact, it can be better to clearly state that
Avatar
Avatar
Gratje
Just for my understanding. HIP80 is mainly focused on the 5G network and not on the lora network? (edited)
No. HIP 80 affects all networks: Most parts are about how DAO utility scores are calculated. The IOT network and MOBILE each will have there own score value. The proportion of the scores determines how HNT that is emitted to all subDAOs during an epoch (unit of time used on blockchains, when on Solana, one epoche = 1 day) will be shared by them. If e.g. the ratios between MOBILE and IOT subDAO was 2:1, Mobile subDAO would get 2/3 of HNT going to all subDAOs and IOT would get 1/3. Thus, changes in the calculation of the DAO utility score calculation affects all subDAOs - and so does HIP 80. @riobah (edited)
Avatar
So for an IOT contributor a clear against.
00:38
Cause iOT is world wide. 5G US only.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 12:40 AM
HIP 80 gives IOT about 85% of the rewards at the start whereas HIP-81 gives IOT about 95% of the rewards at the start
Avatar
Getting HIP80 through only benefits the 5G contributors.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP 80 gives IOT about 85% of the rewards at the start whereas HIP-81 gives IOT about 95% of the rewards at the start
I read 1/3 iOT and 2/3 5G
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 12:42 AM
where did you read that?
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
No. HIP 80 affects all networks: Most parts are about how DAO utility scores are calculated. The IOT network and MOBILE each will have there own score value. The proportion of the scores determines how HNT that is emitted to all subDAOs during an epoch (unit of time used on blockchains, when on Solana, one epoche = 1 day) will be shared by them. If e.g. the ratios between MOBILE and IOT subDAO was 2:1, Mobile subDAO would get 2/3 of HNT going to all subDAOs and IOT would get 1/3. Thus, changes in the calculation of the DAO utility score calculation affects all subDAOs - and so does HIP 80. @riobah (edited)
Thank you. But I could not get how these ratios are changing
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP 80 gives IOT about 85% of the rewards at the start whereas HIP-81 gives IOT about 95% of the rewards at the start
Can you please point me to a reference for this info?
Avatar
Hip also states this: The IOT subDAO is guaranteed a predictable minimum incentive over the longer term to continue network buildout and maintenance, protecting its opportunity to realize its potential
Avatar
Avatar
riobah
Can you please point me to a reference for this info?
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 1:02 AM
@groot
Avatar
Avatar
riobah
Can you please point me to a reference for this info?
With equal veHNT and the V x D formula that HIP80 uses you get floor of mobile / (floor of mobile + floor of iot) = 0.149 so approximately 15% to MOBILE.
Avatar
Thanks all for the questions. @riobah and @Gratje the figures Max and groot state for the initial state of the network are correct. This is because under HIP-80, all networks get a slice of the pie even if their Data Transfer is very low. That includes MOBILE. On the other hand, we hope MOBILE will move lots of data in just a few years. Then, HIP-80 gives special protection to IOT (“founder’s bonus”), so the share of IOT will be higher than under HIP-81 if IOT has not grown as much. See some example numbers here: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093582860625133619
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 1:41 AM
The average mobile hotspot gets 1.5 HNT/day. Good thing I live in the US, have a bunch of radios sitting around from Pollen and only a $5 onboard fee lol
01:42
What an absolute coup by 3 Americans with a bunch of mobile hotspots to convince Ferebee into going along with this
Avatar
That’s an interesting philosophical position. In my view, it’s a scarcity mindset to demand “the other side” (MOBILE) should only get 5% rather than 15%, or on the other hand, if MOBILE grows quickly and IOT doesn’t, IOT should only get 21% rather than 26%, or if MOBILE is fantastically successful and IOT only moderately, IOT should only get 3% rather than 6%. (To pick some numbers from the example model I’ve posted. I’m happy to add additional examples on request.) HIP-80 provides support to low-revenue networks in either case, and that goes for new subDAOs we may choose to invite into Helium in the future. Whether you like that or not is truly a question of scarcity vs. abundance mindset, and short-term vs. long-term outlook.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 2:43 AM
@ferebee jumping here
02:44
we sort of know the model for iot going forward, not sure how you show the mobile side without assuming to much tho
02:45
paul is great at tracking growth for iot
02:45
The monthly stats update on @helium network usage. In March @HeliumIoT traffic growth has been +25% with an overall traffic growth on #ThePeoplesNetwork (excluding oui 45 and 52) +12% month to month. Total $ injected to the network to run the service $3.3k (+18%). The active…
02:46
12% growth this month, he does update stats quite often
02:46
im not sure how you show mobiles projected growth in a way everyone would be happy tho
Avatar
Some people say the reported revenue for IOT has been quite inaccurate to date. And for MOBILE, I think almost everything is a wild guess. So that’s why I’m asking for educated guesses, and proposing to model various scenarios that various people think are reasonable. One of the criticisms of HIP-80 is that it’s “unfair” in some way, which basically means that “slackers shouldn’t get life support”. (The Floor parameters, a. k. a. “magic numbers” only affect subDAOs that are not generating economically meaningful revenue.) The motivation is the same as for investing in any pre-revenue startup.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Some people say the reported revenue for IOT has been quite inaccurate to date. And for MOBILE, I think almost everything is a wild guess. So that’s why I’m asking for educated guesses, and proposing to model various scenarios that various people think are reasonable. One of the criticisms of HIP-80 is that it’s “unfair” in some way, which basically means that “slackers shouldn’t get life support”. (The Floor parameters, a. k. a. “magic numbers” only affect subDAOs that are not generating economically meaningful revenue.) The motivation is the same as for investing in any pre-revenue startup.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 2:57 AM
It is being under reported for sure not sure if that's all resolved now with gateway-rs being live
02:58
Also there's a tonne of burn that's not updated in pauls stat from potential gaming ouis as he mentioned
Avatar
Avatar
Gratje
I read 1/3 iOT and 2/3 5G
Those were made up numbers to illustrate what the DAO Utility Score is used for/affects the distribution of HNT to subDAOs. I made no prediction of what the real ratios are going to be. (edited)
Avatar
Is IOT better with this HIP than without it?
03:10
The score formula seems to give more advantage to mobile because it makes more traffic and people will stake more HNT towards it.
03:12
But square root could won't let the numbers grow too much i guess
Avatar
There's also the floor price so I guess this will make sure the IOT will still receive a good amount of rewards in the beginning...
Avatar
Avatar
QQQ
But square root could won't let the numbers grow too much i guess
The square root is intended to prevent veHNT from being able to override all other factors. Check the pinned posts for more details, including a table (the “pink model”) that compares the results of HIP-80 and HIP-51 under various assumptions. These are just examples, and if people request additional (reasonable) examples, I’ll make an expanded chart. Remember, HIP-81 uses the same formula as HIP-51. (edited)
Avatar
What if 90% of the HNT staked goes towards MOBILE?
03:29
MOBILE can already be traded and the price could go upper. People would stake to earn the token that trades easier and at a better price. There will be a lot of hype boosting the MOBILE token while IOT doesn't have such potential.
03:30
But i guess it's still better than the original formula.
Avatar
I would've liked if the amount of hotspots would still be taken into account, but it's too late now 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
The assumptions in the pink model are wild, the odds of getting to 1M mobile hotspots with a $40 onboarding is unrealistic (edited)
03:39
It also conveniently stops at $50k for IOT where the floor stops being useful while the A factor is still doing its thing.
03:41
The pink model pretends to give a variety of scenarios while in reality it only shows those values that give very similar results for HIP51 and HIP80.
Avatar
Avatar
QQQ
What if 90% of the HNT staked goes towards MOBILE?
If you do the math, with 90% of veHNT delegated to MOBILE, then without the square root the veHNT delegation shifts the HNT emissions by a factor of 9:1 vs. a 50:50 distribution of veHNT, whereas with the square root the veHNT delegation shifts the emissions by a factor of 4:1.
Avatar
The only thing I see in the calculations is more rewarded to mobile. That’s it.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The assumptions in the pink model are wild, the odds of getting to 1M mobile hotspots with a $40 onboarding is unrealistic (edited)
You know what, that’s a reasonable criticism. I’ll reduce that to 200,000 MOBILE Hotspots in that scenario. (Not sure how the $40 fee is relevant to that.) What I had in mind here was that integrated Hotspots with an indoor CBRS radio and gateway in one enclosure, selling under $1,000, don’t seem so far off. capcom has stated that he expects indoor installations to be an important driver of growth. (Leaving aside the proposed Wi-Fi Hotspots for MOBILE.) So that scenario does show an advantage for MOBILE over IOT, though not by a large amount:
03:58
Avatar
Avatar
Gratje
The only thing I see in the calculations is more rewarded to mobile. That’s it.
The proposed advantage for IOT over MOBILE in the HIP-80 scenario is in later stages, when MOBILE is moving large amounts of data with a large number of Hotspots. This includes a potential future scenario proposed by capcom, when large numbers of very cheap Wi-Fi Hotspots are deployed for MOBILE, perhaps covering just 1–2 rooms. That’s referenced in the Pink Model as “Wi-Fi everywhere”.
04:03
Avatar
Same with the “capcom slashes” scenario, apparently IOT only grows in revenue when we drop hotspots to offset the A factor?
04:09
The pink model is very opinionated, which is fine, but when other models are attacked on the validity of their assumptions a little more realistic or at least broad scenarios would be fair.
Avatar
can the formula be changed later on, after solana transition?
04:12
there could be other HIPs to optimize things if necessary
Avatar
Avatar
QQQ
can the formula be changed later on, after solana transition?
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 4:17 AM
It could but at that point people will have staked expecting a certain outcome
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
It could but at that point people will have staked expecting a certain outcome
Since it only changes the HNT distribution they can just redelegate right?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 4:21 AM
but they cant remove tho? the point being if they disagree they're stuck
04:21
/ vote down any changes
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
but they cant remove tho? the point being if they disagree they're stuck
veHNT delegations can be changed, decay durations of HNT locked can't be reduced, only waited out.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
but they cant remove tho? the point being if they disagree they're stuck
This reinforces what Ive been recomending for months. split your veHNT into several positions so you can redelegate and adjust any IOT/MOBILE split balance as things change.
👆 1
10k 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
QQQ
What if 90% of the HNT staked goes towards MOBILE?
Remember, there is a dynamic that counteracts the ratios being extremely skewed: If the share of veHNT delegated to a subDAO increases, each veHNT delegated to that subDAO yields a smaller percentage of the subDAOs total token rewards amount. This is mirrored by each veHNT delegated to the other subDAO yielding a higher percentage of the other subDAOs total token rewards amount. If e.g. 90% of all veHNT is delegated to MOBILE (as opposed to 50%/50%), - the token yield ratios (amount of MOBILE tokens yielded for 1 veHNT delegated to MOBILE /amount of IOT tokens yielded for 1 veHNT delegated to IOT) change by the factor of 9 in favor of veHNT delegated to IOT. - If the differences in DAO utility scores are smaller than that factor, many may view this as an economic incentive to change delegation from MOBILE towards IOT. (edited)
Avatar
Even if you plug in the socket after the IoT is unplugged, it's useless, it's dead, and it can't come back to life anymore. To me, this is the death warrant of hip IoT.
❔ 3
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
Even if you plug in the socket after the IoT is unplugged, it's useless, it's dead, and it can't come back to life anymore. To me, this is the death warrant of hip IoT.
You know of anyone who wants to "unplug" IOT? I don't. Maybe you want to elaborate on your concerns using a few more sentences? (edited)
Avatar
I don't think any of these 2 HIPs have the intention to kill IOT, they differ in how they wish to achieve a prospering ecosystem but neither one tries to kill any of it..
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
You know of anyone who wants to "unplug" IOT? I don't. Maybe you want to elaborate on your concerns using a few more sentences? (edited)
Who said yes to this hip
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
Who said yes to this hip
I think we have very different ideas of what the effects of this HIP may be.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't think any of these 2 HIPs have the intention to kill IOT, they differ in how they wish to achieve a prospering ecosystem but neither one tries to kill any of it..
this is just my opinion.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't think any of these 2 HIPs have the intention to kill IOT, they differ in how they wish to achieve a prospering ecosystem but neither one tries to kill any of it..
sometimes you can be a murderer unintentionally 😦
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
this is just my opinion.
And you are very welcome to have and share your opinion. If you think that most of the people who are convinced that this HIP will not kill IOT have made a severe error in judgment, you should take the time to explain at length, what you believe they have missed. Else your shared opinion will be noted, but quickly forgotten. (edited)
👍🏻 1
Avatar
Isn't that enough to offend all users outside the US? There is no need to write anything at length. Everything is out there.
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
Isn't that enough to offend all users outside the US? There is no need to write anything at length. Everything is out there.
Not sure what you mean by that… Siegfried and I are both outside the US BTW.
Avatar
How much GB per MOBILE HS do you think is reasonable @ferebee ?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
How much GB per MOBILE HS do you think is reasonable @ferebee ?
That’s a good question, and depends on the degree to which usage really keeps up with buildout. The upcoming Helium Mobile Service Provider HIP from Nova suggests there will be a limit of $30/month of paid data per subscriber to limit gaming. So if every MOBILE Hotspot owner put the entire family on a Helium Mobile unlimited plan, and had them use up the $30 allocation every month while at home, it could be quite a bit!
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s a good question, and depends on the degree to which usage really keeps up with buildout. The upcoming Helium Mobile Service Provider HIP from Nova suggests there will be a limit of $30/month of paid data per subscriber to limit gaming. So if every MOBILE Hotspot owner put the entire family on a Helium Mobile unlimited plan, and had them use up the $30 allocation every month while at home, it could be quite a bit!
The reason that I ask is that your current "pink model" gives about $4 so 8GB a hotspot which I don't think is all that realistic.
Avatar
That’s a valid point. If we just leave the numbers of Hotspots unchanged and put the MOBILE DC Burn at $400/month per Hotspot, for example, look at that! Note that this is still at $40/onboarding per Hotspot.
06:13
Avatar
I don't think it is the right way to shift one timeline and not the other, but if that's the way you want to go with your model that's alright.
Avatar
If we burn that much HNT, I’ll go insane. And at those rates, I can see the 8M Wi-Fi Hotspots for MOBILE flying off the shelves, even while onboarding is at $40, let alone $5. But it seems like Nova would have trouble paying for that much DC. Or would they?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I don't think it is the right way to shift one timeline and not the other, but if that's the way you want to go with your model that's alright.
We can tweak it some more.
06:20
The two are really not that far apart, are they? You are looking at higher numbers of IOT Hotspots, which goes against capcom’s suggestion that the dense Hotspots be slashed way down, and we don’t need seven figure numbers of Hotspots at all. But who knows where his suggestion will lead. And you’re also growing IOT revenue quite optimistically in relation to MOBILE revenue, but that’s also a fair alternative scenario.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 6:20 AM
2m of DC burn from mobiles a lot right? Are people's generals thoughts that might be 6 months out, a year? (edited)
06:21
2 years?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The two are really not that far apart, are they? You are looking at higher numbers of IOT Hotspots, which goes against capcom’s suggestion that the dense Hotspots be slashed way down, and we don’t need seven figure numbers of Hotspots at all. But who knows where his suggestion will lead. And you’re also growing IOT revenue quite optimistically in relation to MOBILE revenue, but that’s also a fair alternative scenario.
I've looked at the load factor of hotspots and what is reasonable for lora actually, but if you want to assume bad faith that's on you.
06:22
For example, I think it is unreasonable to suggest that 3M MOBILE hotspots are going to exist while keeping onboarding at $40 but you didn't hear me complain.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I've looked at the load factor of hotspots and what is reasonable for lora actually, but if you want to assume bad faith that's on you.
I’m not suggesting bad faith at all. Your model is not unreasonable.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
2m of DC burn from mobiles a lot right? Are people's generals thoughts that might be 6 months out, a year? (edited)
Using the 30GB/month limit that $2M burn is worth 4M GB which is at least 133k customers. And that's with them all full blast every month. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
2m of DC burn from mobiles a lot right? Are people's generals thoughts that might be 6 months out, a year? (edited)
groot was questioning my previous modeling, which showed a low rate of DC Burn per MOBILE Hotspot. We do already have close to 5,000 Hotspots ready to go once Helium Mobile is live, if not more. This assumes a high rate of DC Burn per MOBILE Hotspot, at least initially.
Avatar
In my model I went for approximately $60 on avg per MOBILE hotspot
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Using the 30GB/month limit that $2M burn is worth 4M GB which is at least 133k customers. And that's with them all full blast every month. (edited)
Oh, wait. I went too far. I was thinking of a $30 limit paid data per customer, not 30 GB. So this is too high. I knew I was going to get in trouble trying to wing this. Let me delete the table above and try this.
06:30
06:31
Lunch calls, back in abit!
Avatar
Doesn’t matter how you look at it. As soon as mobile DC goes up. It crashes the whole iOT.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Gratje
Doesn’t matter how you look at it. As soon as mobile DC goes up. It crashes the whole iOT.
If a subDAO goes to burn significantly more than another that will always happen, be it with 51, 80 or 81. The question is if you want to sponsor the MOBILE subDAO with 1.5HNT/hotspot/day because it is plugged in or do you want to give them their fair share when it significantly furthers the Helium DAO.
👍🏻 2
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If a subDAO goes to burn significantly more than another that will always happen, be it with 51, 80 or 81. The question is if you want to sponsor the MOBILE subDAO with 1.5HNT/hotspot/day because it is plugged in or do you want to give them their fair share when it significantly furthers the Helium DAO.
1.5 Hnt a day. Times 400k HS = 600k hnt a day. That’s a big chunk of the daily reward.
Avatar
It isn't 400k HS, it's just the MOBILE HS
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It isn't 400k HS, it's just the MOBILE HS
How many times the revenue of 1 IoT Lorawan Hotspot on average?
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
How many times the revenue of 1 IoT Lorawan Hotspot on average?
15 times, but that isn't the point. If they deserve it they deserve it, 100%. The point is the MOBILE subDAO hasn't brought any burn yet.
👍 1
06:57
I'll actually be very happy when the MOBILE subDAO starts burning massive amounts..
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The two are really not that far apart, are they? You are looking at higher numbers of IOT Hotspots, which goes against capcom’s suggestion that the dense Hotspots be slashed way down, and we don’t need seven figure numbers of Hotspots at all. But who knows where his suggestion will lead. And you’re also growing IOT revenue quite optimistically in relation to MOBILE revenue, but that’s also a fair alternative scenario.
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 6:59 AM
id love to know where u base the not needing 7 figures of hotspots, the network isnt even close to fully built out yet even if that million where in perfect location there wouldnt be full coverage ( if i read your statement correct) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
id love to know where u base the not needing 7 figures of hotspots, the network isnt even close to fully built out yet even if that million where in perfect location there wouldnt be full coverage ( if i read your statement correct) (edited)
capcom has proposed that we could lose 80 or even 90% of the current total, if only the beat-performing Hotspots are kept, without losing much coverage. This would improve PoC rewards for the high performers, as the other installations would no longer be siphoning off rewards for their low performance. Then, the poorly performing Hotspots might be moved to more useful locations, or new Hotspots might be installed there. So we might be able to achieve much better coverage without greatly increasing the total number of Hotspots. Naturally, this proposal is controversial, and things might develop differently.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
capcom has proposed that we could lose 80 or even 90% of the current total, if only the beat-performing Hotspots are kept, without losing much coverage. This would improve PoC rewards for the high performers, as the other installations would no longer be siphoning off rewards for their low performance. Then, the poorly performing Hotspots might be moved to more useful locations, or new Hotspots might be installed there. So we might be able to achieve much better coverage without greatly increasing the total number of Hotspots. Naturally, this proposal is controversial, and things might develop differently.
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:13 AM
no way can we get that coverage on the hotspots we have now . for starters when a hotspots done its done. but it still exists on chain . so to keep coverage at current levels still requires new hotspots to be onboarded
07:14
even if everyone moved to a perfect location and we had perfect density theres no where near enough hotspots that could come online and cover the globe
07:16
even at 1 million hotspots that would mean on average every single hotspot would need to cover ~50km2 of land to cover the worlds land mass. we currently have less than half those hotspots activly earning. you cannot just assume the 600k hotspots that are currently inactive can 'suddenly spring back into life '
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
no way can we get that coverage on the hotspots we have now . for starters when a hotspots done its done. but it still exists on chain . so to keep coverage at current levels still requires new hotspots to be onboarded
Neither HIP-51, HIP-80, nor HIP-81 propose that “dead” Hotspots (HS that are not “active”) would have any effect on the emission split. In the end, it makes no sense long-term for dead Hotspots to have any effect on anything. As for 50 km2, I have some hero Hotspots that do a lot more than that. Covering the Sahara shouldn’t be too hard with the proper incentives. But we’ll be OK if we just cover much of civilization first.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Neither HIP-51, HIP-80, nor HIP-81 propose that “dead” Hotspots (HS that are not “active”) would have any effect on the emission split. In the end, it makes no sense long-term for dead Hotspots to have any effect on anything. As for 50 km2, I have some hero Hotspots that do a lot more than that. Covering the Sahara shouldn’t be too hard with the proper incentives. But we’ll be OK if we just cover much of civilization first.
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:21 AM
i didnt say inactive hotspots had anything to do with emissions split that comment was in regards to capcom has proposed that we could lose 80 or even 90% of the current total . that is bieng used here in the context IMHO that lora iot wont go any further than it is ( wont bring dc burn to the table with onboarding ) however this is not the case at all . to complete the iot network theres still plenty of new hotspots that need to come online in GOOD locations.
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
i didnt say inactive hotspots had anything to do with emissions split that comment was in regards to capcom has proposed that we could lose 80 or even 90% of the current total . that is bieng used here in the context IMHO that lora iot wont go any further than it is ( wont bring dc burn to the table with onboarding ) however this is not the case at all . to complete the iot network theres still plenty of new hotspots that need to come online in GOOD locations.
To look at that from another side, that can only happen if we make sure IOT keeps getting rewards in a future when MOBILE is already burning lots of DC.
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:23 AM
and you may have some hero hotspots but theres 50 dog shit hotspots to every1 of your top hotspots. anyone that things every crap earning hotspot will make it into the hands of a real deployer is crazy. some will sit on doing nothing as why wouldnt they. they cost nothing to run. or they get turned off and chucked in a cupboard . maby some get sold but people selling now are people desprate to recoup money from being scallped in the bull run
07:25
im sorry but i dont see mobile for what you people do. mobile its trying to fight in a already congested market. even talks of wifi mobile hotspots doesnt appeal to me becuase at least where im from open wifi is on nearly every street and thats only getting bigger
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Gratje
1.5 Hnt a day. Times 400k HS = 600k hnt a day. That’s a big chunk of the daily reward.
As groot points out, it would be much less than that. In my example sheet, we’re talking about MOBILE receiving 3.3% vs. 15%, or to put it differently, IOT receiving 85% instead of 97%. Which is a meaningful reduction for IOT, but not night and day. And in other extreme scenarios, maybe MOBILE will sacrifice a percent or two in order to give IOT a significant boost vs. HIP-51. The idea of HIP-80 is that high-revenue subDAOs will give a small but helpful subsidy to low- or pre-revenue subDAOs, such as MOBILE right now, or IOT in a few years, or a completely new subDAO some time in the future. Specifically, any subDAO, including MOBILE, once it has been invited into the Helium DAO, gets credit for at least $1.470/month in DC Burn, even if it is burning none at all. That’s our investment to help it get off the ground. And IOT, as a founder’s bonus, because it got it all started, gets credit for $48.000/month for the next 4 years, even while it’s burning less. This is a subsidy, but I think the models show that it’s not really a terrible burden on the stronger subDAO in any of the cases we have looked at here.
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
im sorry but i dont see mobile for what you people do. mobile its trying to fight in a already congested market. even talks of wifi mobile hotspots doesnt appeal to me becuase at least where im from open wifi is on nearly every street and thats only getting bigger
At some point though that is a cost and will need to be paid this provides business a way to provide a second way of monetizing which isn't prevalent in the US I'm sorry I'm not terribly well versed on other countries wifi density
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
and you may have some hero hotspots but theres 50 dog shit hotspots to every1 of your top hotspots. anyone that things every crap earning hotspot will make it into the hands of a real deployer is crazy. some will sit on doing nothing as why wouldnt they. they cost nothing to run. or they get turned off and chucked in a cupboard . maby some get sold but people selling now are people desprate to recoup money from being scallped in the bull run
Well, that's why I think the total number of active, deployed IOT Hotspots won’t rise too much higher than the current number very quickly. Some will go offline, and the revenue currently doesn’t support arbitrarily high numbers yet...
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, that's why I think the total number of active, deployed IOT Hotspots won’t rise too much higher than the current number very quickly. Some will go offline, and the revenue currently doesn’t support arbitrarily high numbers yet...
Ya I actually expect it to go down... maybe as far as half
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
At some point though that is a cost and will need to be paid this provides business a way to provide a second way of monetizing which isn't prevalent in the US I'm sorry I'm not terribly well versed on other countries wifi density
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:30 AM
wifi is free. all they want is your data and 99% of people dont give a rats ass about thier data if they get free stuff. so untill you can find a model that can be free for the end user and still pay hosts imho its a no go
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
wifi is free. all they want is your data and 99% of people dont give a rats ass about thier data if they get free stuff. so untill you can find a model that can be free for the end user and still pay hosts imho its a no go
Opinions differ… I sure as hell never use free Wi-Fi. 🤣
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Opinions differ… I sure as hell never use free Wi-Fi. 🤣
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:31 AM
no i bet you wouldnt but lets be real your not the majority same as im not . but in reality people dont care. go look how many people go sit in MCD or startbucks and use the free wifi ?
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
no i bet you wouldnt but lets be real your not the majority same as im not . but in reality people dont care. go look how many people go sit in MCD or startbucks and use the free wifi ?
Are speeds limited there? Like very low or is that pretty rare?
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:32 AM
afew of the eurpoean ISP default home routers to provide open wifi for customers in the area.
Avatar
Helium MOBILE Wi-Fi Hotspots will work seamlessly with your SIM, no need to log onto the Wi-Fi. With a proposed “Unlimited” Helium Mobile contract, you get “unlimited” data over T-Mobile where Helium MOBILE coverage is not available, and unlimited data over Helium MOBILE (5G or Wi-Fi) what it is. All for the price of a T-Mobile MVNO contract. Maybe similar to Mint Mobile, for example. (Prices not announced yet.)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Are speeds limited there? Like very low or is that pretty rare?
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:32 AM
what does it matter when you walk into a place that wants you to use thier wifi and your 4g colapses while your in there ?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, that's why I think the total number of active, deployed IOT Hotspots won’t rise too much higher than the current number very quickly. Some will go offline, and the revenue currently doesn’t support arbitrarily high numbers yet...
That same holds for MOBILE though, so far there is nothing to support your (and partly mine) wild estimates
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
afew of the eurpoean ISP default home routers to provide open wifi for customers in the area.
Ya they are doing that here to I've made it a point to let people know and it's only 1 good hack away from being sued into oblivion (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
no i bet you wouldnt but lets be real your not the majority same as im not . but in reality people dont care. go look how many people go sit in MCD or startbucks and use the free wifi ?
With @ferebee here. No free WiFi here unless it’s an auto swap via WiFi that’s through my phone plan which is seemingly what WiFi hotspots are directed towards.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Ya they are doing that here to I've made it a point to let people know and it's only 1 good hack away from being sued into oblivion (edited)
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:34 AM
as long as its done correctly by the isp no harm done. they only issue is the limited speeds the user faces ( i turned off the free wifi becuase i only get 40mb )
07:35
lol not sure where you guys are living but in the uk free wifi is everywhere everyone wants you connected to thiers
Avatar
Avatar
groot
That same holds for MOBILE though, so far there is nothing to support your (and partly mine) wild estimates
I think what the latest models we’ve both posted here show, is that neither HIP-81 nor HIP-80 does anything horrible in most scenarios. So the aspect of subsidizing subDAOs pre-revenue is one distinguishing factor (which is “socialist” or “venture capitalist”, depending on your viewpoint). Another distinguishing factor is the square root on the V factor.
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:36 AM
walk through the doors of a "motel" here and your 4/5g will drop to bear cell service and you will be greeted with a lovly free wifi and login page
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:36 AM
Can someone explain the rationale behind voting for 80 and against 81? Everything in HIP-81 is in HIP-80
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can someone explain the rationale behind voting for 80 and against 81? Everything in HIP-81 is in HIP-80
Only HIP-80 or HIP-81 will be implemented. If both pass, the one with the greater amount of HNT on YES wins. Right? So OFC it makes sense to vote YES on your preferred solution and NO on the other.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can someone explain the rationale behind voting for 80 and against 81? Everything in HIP-81 is in HIP-80
HIP-80 and HIP-81 specify different formulas for the DAO Utility Score. We can’t use both at once.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:38 AM
That’s not how you are supposed to vote, you would vote for 80 and not for 81
07:38
Like it’s clearly written that’s how you should vote
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
walk through the doors of a "motel" here and your 4/5g will drop to bear cell service and you will be greeted with a lovly free wifi and login page
Huh it's a bit more formal and things are a lot more constrained here but def heading in that direction but there is a much larger portion of our population that views privacy as essential
Avatar
From the Vote Instructions: (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That’s not how you are supposed to vote, you would vote for 80 and not for 81
Where are you getting that?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Huh it's a bit more formal and things are a lot more constrained here but def heading in that direction but there is a much larger portion of our population that views privacy as essential
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:39 AM
100% disagree with the end of that statement . but thats just my view
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
100% disagree with the end of that statement . but thats just my view
Don’t think that’s true either, they just think they do
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:40 AM
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:41 AM
99% of people will sell thier soul for free stuff no mater how much better they think they are than everyone else. usa is one of the biggest consumers of amazon products need i say more (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
100% disagree with the end of that statement . but thats just my view
Of that there is a larger portion (relative to other countries) that view privacy more important I think you pointed out 99% don't care I think something like 5-10% of Americans care or at least avoid know pitfalls
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Huh it's a bit more formal and things are a lot more constrained here but def heading in that direction but there is a much larger portion of our population that views privacy as essential
It’s like that all over the US already, what are you talking about?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Click to see attachment 🖼️
Or maybe it’s clearer in the announcement?
07:42
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:42 AM
It was explained that way in AMA
07:43
Vote for both independently
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Of that there is a larger portion (relative to other countries) that view privacy more important I think you pointed out 99% don't care I think something like 5-10% of Americans care or at least avoid know pitfalls
What other countries?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Of that there is a larger portion (relative to other countries) that view privacy more important I think you pointed out 99% don't care I think something like 5-10% of Americans care or at least avoid know pitfalls
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:43 AM
its not a pitfall its a way of life. nothing you can give a tech company is worth more than your data. every big tech business thrives to extract as much data as humanly possible even if that mean selling at a loss / giving away
Avatar
Avatar
groot
What other countries?
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:43 AM
easter island Troll
Avatar
Yes, but only one will be implemented, right? It says: If both pass, then a selection rule will govern: the HIP with the greater HNT vote power will be adopted.
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
It’s like that all over the US already, what are you talking about?
Well I was pointing to his example of walking into a hotel and getting wifi in America most of the times there is either a password given to when you rent a room and lots of places ask for your email etc (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Yes, but only one will be implemented, right? It says: If both pass, then a selection rule will govern: the HIP with the greater HNT vote power will be adopted.
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:44 AM
Right so the one with more yes votes
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Click to see attachment 🖼️
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:45 AM
onthis point is it just me that feels foundation should have given their decision should it tie before the vote was opened 🤷‍♂️
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:45 AM
If you prefer one over the other you vote for that HIP and not for the other
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Well I was pointing to his example of walking into a hotel and getting wifi in America most of the times there is either a password given to when you rent a room and lots of places ask for your email etc (edited)
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:46 AM
i didnt say you didnt need to sign into the service to use it . but what do people care if some company iv never heard of have my "burner email" they will never link it to me /s (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:46 AM
It makes no sense to vote for and HIP and against a HIP that includes pieces of the other.
07:46
That would mean people are voting for 80 but don’t like the minimum floor
07:47
Also, just want to point out, Chris you sold out IOT with this HIP
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If you prefer one over the other you vote for that HIP and not for the other
I’m totally confused by your reasoning. If I prefer HIP-80 over HIP-81, why on Earth would I want to refrain from expressing that by voting against HIP-81?
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:47 AM
hospitals/malls/city streets/ cafes/ train stations . it doesnt matter where you are if your in civilisation your minutes from a free wifi provider somewhere
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:47 AM
Because the vote was supposed to be done in a way where you vote for each as if the other didn’t exist
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Because the vote was supposed to be done in a way where you vote for each as if the other didn’t exist
Where does it say that?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:48 AM
Listen to the AMA yesterday
07:48
It also says to vote on both HIPs independently (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Listen to the AMA yesterday
We have vote instructions now. Are they not relevant? It seems you find voting theory difficult to understand—it is. But don’t you think it’s silly to tell people how they “should” vote? They vote to express their opinion using the options available.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:50 AM
Oh yea, this is the gaslighting channel
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It also says to vote on both HIPs independently (edited)
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:50 AM
my take was vote up on one and down on the other it would be silly to not vote on both . it shouldnt have been a yes no vote IMHO it should have been 1 vote hip80- hip 81
👆 1
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Also, just want to point out, Chris you sold out IOT with this HIP
That’s a silly assertion to make. But perhaps you would like to state what scenario you are looking at where IOT will get the short end of the stick, in the longer term?
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
hospitals/malls/city streets/ cafes/ train stations . it doesnt matter where you are if your in civilisation your minutes from a free wifi provider somewhere
True but America is a lot more rural and suburban, where as UK is a lot more urban or at least that's my take at looking at a population heat map relative to each other cbrs is pretty well suited to suburban environments IMO also we don't nearly have the same percentage of brick and concrete buildings which is another plus
Avatar
Yeah gotta tell yeah this feels like a real nail in the coffin for IoT/HNT/ the project.
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
Yeah gotta tell yeah this feels like a real nail in the coffin for IoT/HNT/ the project.
Why?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh yea, this is the gaslighting channel
Is it so hard for you to state your position in a rational way?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
True but America is a lot more rural and suburban, where as UK is a lot more urban or at least that's my take at looking at a population heat map relative to each other cbrs is pretty well suited to suburban environments IMO also we don't nearly have the same percentage of brick and concrete buildings which is another plus
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:53 AM
thats america thinking the world stops at thier borders
facepalm 1
❌ 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s a silly assertion to make. But perhaps you would like to state what scenario you are looking at where IOT will get the short end of the stick, in the longer term?
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:53 AM
Mobile gets no data. It’s questionable if it can legally operate in the US under its current model. You created a system where IOT gives up a 3x as much HNT to mobile for doing nothing.
Avatar
Propping up what’s now exposed as a worthless network using figures that are completely baseless will have dire consequences
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Mobile gets no data. It’s questionable if it can legally operate in the US under its current model. You created a system where IOT gives up a 3x as much HNT to mobile for doing nothing.
It’s true. As long as MOBILE burns no data, it gets 15% of HNT under HIP-80 as opposed to 3–5% under HIP-51, before considering the veHNT delegation. Is IOT so weak that going from 97 to 85% of IOT will kill it?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:55 AM
This attracts nonsense subDAOs. Why wouldn’t every shitcoin make huge promises with non verifiable projections and come in and steal a bunch of HNT then fuck off and leave
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
Propping up what’s now exposed as a worthless network using figures that are completely baseless will have dire consequences
Which network is worthless? Max just said MOBILE may get no data.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:55 AM
You removed the A score. There will be no revenue
07:55
No more fly wheel
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Which network is worthless? Max just said MOBILE may get no data.
And I agree!
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
thats america thinking the world stops at thier borders
How does my statement mean that?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
This attracts nonsense subDAOs. Why wouldn’t every shitcoin make huge promises with non verifiable projections and come in and steal a bunch of HNT then fuck off and leave
Because I wouldn’t vote to take them on as a subDAO. Would you? I already put a good deal of effort into evaluating the proposed Boring VPN subDAO, and they withdraw their proposal.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 7:56 AM
there are no subDAOs?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Because I wouldn’t vote to take them on as a subDAO. Would you? I already put a good deal of effort into evaluating the proposed Boring VPN subDAO, and they withdraw their proposal.
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:56 AM
Because boring said they want to use BOP for payments.
07:56
If they kept their mouth shut they’d be a subDAO
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 7:57 AM
theres a finite market for MOBILE in its current form . the only way that can change currently is to open it to the rest of the world and the only proposals so far that could change that are not going to work in anywhere where those options are freely available to the masses . apparetnly thats everywhere but the usa
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 7:59 AM
I would imagine WiFi would be more prevalent worldwide because of mobile limitations and spectrum issues. So we'd see another subDAO instead.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 7:59 AM
You removed the A score because Noah said it couldn’t be done by migration but when I talked to him I got a commitment of august 1 for it to work
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You removed the A score. There will be no revenue
So you think the Helium DAO is dependent on onboarding fees going forward, and Helium Mobile is a sham? As soon as Helium Mobile goes live, the least that would happen should be: Each MOBILE Hotspot owner gets one, two, three Helium Mobile Unlimited SIMs, and each SIM does the maximum of $15/month paid revenue. That’s, what, $300,000/month, isn’t it?
Avatar
This whole assumption that mobile is going to be this mega data mover is completely baseless. It’s what you stuff into the pipe before you dream.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So you think the Helium DAO is dependent on onboarding fees going forward, and Helium Mobile is a sham? As soon as Helium Mobile goes live, the least that would happen should be: Each MOBILE Hotspot owner gets one, two, three Helium Mobile Unlimited SIMs, and each SIM does the maximum of $15/month paid revenue. That’s, what, $300,000/month, isn’t it?
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:00 AM
Each mobile hotspot owner gets free metered unlimited sims?
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
I would imagine WiFi would be more prevalent worldwide because of mobile limitations and spectrum issues. So we'd see another subDAO instead.
nosmaster89 04/11/2023 8:00 AM
wifi its freely available now that my point making a paid for public wifi services in todays age isnt going to cut it your data is more valuable to companies than your $30 a month (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:00 AM
This HIP was predicated on that fact?
08:00
Where is that written?
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
This whole assumption that mobile is going to be this mega data mover is completely baseless. It’s what you stuff into the pipe before you dream.
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:00 AM
If there's desperation for HNT, then people will move data to accumulate.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh yea, this is the gaslighting channel
Max, this type of rhetoric has got to stop.
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So you think the Helium DAO is dependent on onboarding fees going forward, and Helium Mobile is a sham? As soon as Helium Mobile goes live, the least that would happen should be: Each MOBILE Hotspot owner gets one, two, three Helium Mobile Unlimited SIMs, and each SIM does the maximum of $15/month paid revenue. That’s, what, $300,000/month, isn’t it?
Are you kidding? Of the 3900 gateways with radios on them, how many do you think are actual individual owners?
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Max, this type of rhetoric has got to stop.
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:01 AM
I’ve been called a pump and dumper and an agent of XNET by authors of this HIP
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Each mobile hotspot owner gets free metered unlimited sims?
I think a lot of MOBILE Hotspot operators are likely to choose Helium Mobile as their family’s MVNO. Don’t you? They get to use T-Mobile everywhere else, and for sure they’re gonna burn the Helium MOBILE data when they’re at home. Wouldn’t you?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve been called a pump and dumper and an agent of XNET by authors of this HIP
Reference? That seems very out of line for them.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:02 AM
No, would I pay $5 per gig to earn back $.50 per gig
Avatar
I’d say maybe 2500 being generous. You think of those 2500 they are each going to get 3 SIMs and burn $15/data a month? Yeah that’s real sustainable.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:02 AM
Sent via DM
Avatar
Ok well then take that up with them directly.
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Reference? That seems very out of line for them.
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/11/2023 8:03 AM
Was on Telegram, I have seen the comments made.
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Was on Telegram, I have seen the comments made.
🤦🏻‍♂️
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
If there's desperation for HNT, then people will move data to accumulate.
Yeah for maybe a month, two max. People aren’t going to sit around burning data on their mediocre CBRS cellular coverage in their house
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
Yeah for maybe a month, two max. People aren’t going to sit around burning data on their mediocre CBRS cellular coverage in their house
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:04 AM
/sarcasm And people aren't going to transfer bogus data on IOT to move funds.
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Ok well then take that up with them directly.
Can’t really fault someone for reacting less than cordial when such comments are made
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
/sarcasm And people aren't going to transfer bogus data on IOT to move funds.
Hah my bad, it’s early 😆 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No, would I pay $5 per gig to earn back $.50 per gig
It sounds like it from https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/0ebe037fbc281d5fdb2eb93e7ebd9a547453e412/0000-helium-mobile-service-provider.md that there will be a Helium Mobile Unlimited plan. That ought to be fairly attractive, if it’s priced somewhere near the going rate for a T-Mobile MVNO contract. So it doesn’t seem unlikely that there will be general interest in getting into these contracts, for people who are affiliated with Helium MOBILE in some way. And there will be rewards of some sort for using Helium Mobile SIMs in conjunction with MOBILE Hotspots, even if it’s just for mapping. So in total, I do expect to see revenue from there.
Helium Improvement Proposals. Contribute to helium/HIP development by creating an account on GitHub.
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
Hah my bad, it’s early 😆 (edited)
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:06 AM
People are going to game if they suspect potential profitability. Everyone is scared of whales - however their participation in votes so far has been minimal.
Avatar
Avatar
triM
🤦🏻‍♂️
There’s always two sides to every coin, and every personality
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Can’t really fault someone for reacting less than cordial when such comments are made
Indeed and I have a lot of other feelings on the matter but don’t want to further muddy the waters here.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:07 AM
I think specific concerns on the HIP should be stated, with data to match up, or at least reasonable extrapolation.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve been called a pump and dumper and an agent of XNET by authors of this HIP
I wasn’t involved in that exchange. I haven’t seen that here, or I would comment. What happens on other forums might be unrelated to the subject at hand, so I question whether it’s relevant. I could see it happen that somebody might have a heated exchange with Max on social media. 😄
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Indeed and I have a lot of other feelings on the matter but don’t want to further muddy the waters here.
Suffice it to say my respect was lost in a single comment.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It sounds like it from https://github.com/helium/HIP/blob/0ebe037fbc281d5fdb2eb93e7ebd9a547453e412/0000-helium-mobile-service-provider.md that there will be a Helium Mobile Unlimited plan. That ought to be fairly attractive, if it’s priced somewhere near the going rate for a T-Mobile MVNO contract. So it doesn’t seem unlikely that there will be general interest in getting into these contracts, for people who are affiliated with Helium MOBILE in some way. And there will be rewards of some sort for using Helium Mobile SIMs in conjunction with MOBILE Hotspots, even if it’s just for mapping. So in total, I do expect to see revenue from there.
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:08 AM
But an MVNO is going to sell expensive unlimited plans that can’t be recycled into their own own radio because they lose money
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I wasn’t involved in that exchange. I haven’t seen that here, or I would comment. What happens on other forums might be unrelated to the subject at hand, so I question whether it’s relevant. I could see it happen that somebody might have a heated exchange with Max on social media. 😄
That’s downplaying x100.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But an MVNO is going to sell expensive unlimited plans that can’t be recycled into their own own radio because they lose money
Nova is going to sell unlimited plans, and they apparently think they will be successful. There’s a limit of $15/month on the “paying for DC Burn” in the PR I referenced, without a usage limit. Interesting, actually! That’s where I got the $15/user/month figure from.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I wasn’t involved in that exchange. I haven’t seen that here, or I would comment. What happens on other forums might be unrelated to the subject at hand, so I question whether it’s relevant. I could see it happen that somebody might have a heated exchange with Max on social media. 😄
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:09 AM
A smiley face? Seriously? And no, I joined the discussion after people messaged me to let me know what was going on (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
A smiley face? Seriously? And no, I joined the discussion after people messaged me to let me know what was going on (edited)
Are we discussing HIP-80 here, or are we discussing who has how much respect for whom based on which comments were made where? I try to be respectful, especially in this channel. Please call me out when I’m not.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:11 AM
We are discussing HIP-80s method of garnering votes
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I wasn’t involved in that exchange. I haven’t seen that here, or I would comment. What happens on other forums might be unrelated to the subject at hand, so I question whether it’s relevant. I could see it happen that somebody might have a heated exchange with Max on social media. 😄
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/11/2023 8:12 AM
When an HIP author needs to resort to badmouthing people somewhere else, because they cannot discuss in a normal manner here, and als do tempcheck vote rigging, for me that is a clear sign they only are here for themselves and not for the Helium community. This hip will always be remembered for this.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We are discussing HIP-80s method of garnering votes
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:12 AM
I believe that's the intention. However there's some toxic cruft occurring over assumptions getting in the way.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think a lot of MOBILE Hotspot operators are likely to choose Helium Mobile as their family’s MVNO. Don’t you? They get to use T-Mobile everywhere else, and for sure they’re gonna burn the Helium MOBILE data when they’re at home. Wouldn’t you?
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:12 AM
this won't happen because carrier unlocking hex is coming, there will be no poc reward for radios for radios outside selected carrier hexes. you guys all think mobile is going to do well, a lot of that is going to change so radios are home earn 0 for poc
👆 1
💯 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:13 AM
I could give two shits about HIP-80 at this point, how do we expect to have network participation when anyone who gets in the way of a cash grab HIP has to deal with character assassination within the community.
💯 1
👆 1
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:14 AM
it's hard enough to grow the network because there's so many restrictions , the misconception that mobile deployers have it easy or mobile is going to kill IoT is just wrong
☝️ 2
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
it's hard enough to grow the network because there's so many restrictions , the misconception that mobile deployers have it easy or mobile is going to kill IoT is just wrong
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:14 AM
A lot rides on the staking, let's be honest.
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
When an HIP author needs to resort to badmouthing people somewhere else, because they cannot discuss in a normal manner here, and als do tempcheck vote rigging, for me that is a clear sign they only are here for themselves and not for the Helium community. This hip will always be remembered for this.
Maybe let’s drop the he said she said? 😉 FTR I try to keep the high road here and believe I succeed reasonably well, apart for a bit of snark here and there.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
A lot rides on the staking, let's be honest.
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:15 AM
let's be honest? So you're saying I'm not?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Maybe let’s drop the he said she said? 😉 FTR I try to keep the high road here and believe I succeed reasonably well, apart for a bit of snark here and there.
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 8:15 AM
But you’ve actually seen it…
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
A lot rides on the staking, let's be honest.
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:16 AM
What staking are you referring to? carrier stake hex to unlock , that's them telling us where to put it, has nothing to do with me. there is no operator staking involved in poc (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But you’ve actually seen it…
Max, you and I have had our own heated exchanges on social media. I try to keep the heat focused on the subject matter. I’ll try to focus on the subject matter here too. Maybe you could return to the subject matter as well.
👍 2
Avatar
gristleking 04/11/2023 8:17 AM
Folks, it's getting a little heated in here. Appreciate the intensity with which this is being approached, but I'd suggest walking away for a bit. All of us want a better network, none of us are absolutely sure how to get there. Let's not burn down relationships in pursuit of a goal on an unknown path.
👍 6
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:18 AM
If modding, I would have DMed cautions with mutes for 30min. For decorum's sake. (still absolutely respectful of parties involved) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
If modding, I would have DMed cautions with mutes for 30min. For decorum's sake. (still absolutely respectful of parties involved) (edited)
gristleking 04/11/2023 8:20 AM
Yeah, I'm still finishing my morning coffee and just saw this. 🙂
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:27 AM
I think it would be helpful to add a table to this HIP of the values like groot did: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1093953561970352309/1095337083763163246 There are concerns of the square root undercutting staking to what I perceive (from feedback) is an unfair degree. (edited)
👆 1
08:27
So we run the numbers and tell the story.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
I think it would be helpful to add a table to this HIP of the values like groot did: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1093953561970352309/1095337083763163246 There are concerns of the square root undercutting staking to what I perceive (from feedback) is an unfair degree. (edited)
I still find it difficult to understand some parts of the V factor myself. One example I have worked out so far. If the distribution of veHNT between two subDAOs is 10% to the one, 90% to the other, then HIP-81 gives a weighting of 9:1 HIP-80 gives a weighting of 4:1 For a 95% to 5% distribution, it’s 95:5 vs. 81:19. So the square root just softens the impact. With the square root, it’s very hard to slam one subDAO against the wall and raise the other all the way up.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:41 AM
So are people just still patently against this biased type of ratio?
Avatar
HIP80 is just created for 5G users unfortunately. Thats my opinion. A 9:1 vs 4:1 is a big difference. As is 14% difference. (edited)
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:42 AM
Side note: this is why I had suggested covered hexes to non-covered hexes as another way to reduce the footprint/biasing. Then increase onboarding to burn directly to support the subdao. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Gratje
HIP80 is just created for 5G users unfortunately. Thats my opinion. A 9:1 vs 4:1 is a big difference. As is 14% difference. (edited)
If you look at my models, you’ll see that the other intent is to support IOT if IOT takes longer to grow and MOBILE is very successful.
08:43
One thing worth remembering is, if nobody grows, we’re all done for.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:44 AM
I think control via onboarding is the less risky approach to supporting growth and mitigating network bias. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If you look at my models, you’ll see that the other intent is to support IOT if IOT takes longer to grow and MOBILE is very successful.
I did look at the models. And still i feel this HIP80 is for the 5G users. Iot Users should vote for HIP81.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:45 AM
We know IOT onboarding fees need to decrease, and Mobile will need more support if it is to grow.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
One thing worth remembering is, if nobody grows, we’re all done for.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 8:46 AM
Iot is, 12% (probably more) this month 🙂
📈 1
👇 1
👆 1
08:47
The pace isn't exactly mind blowing but it's growth 🙂
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:47 AM
Keith is probably better at answering this but there hasn't been any significant growth in Mobile, in fact a lot of the players I know are already selling their radios and leaving
✅ 1
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
We know IOT onboarding fees need to decrease, and Mobile will need more support if it is to grow.
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:49 AM
You shouldn't be voting for hips based on the onboarding fee with the second having coming all onboarding fees are going to drop regardless of which way you vote for the current hips (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Gratje
HIP80 is just created for 5G users unfortunately. Thats my opinion. A 9:1 vs 4:1 is a big difference. As is 14% difference. (edited)
It looks like that on the surface, in reality it’s a you scratch my back I scratch yours. It’s just the back scratch for mobile takes them doing work and actually using the network, and the back scratch for IoT is keeping a useless network propped up for 4 more years on the backs of mobile
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Iot is, 12% (probably more) this month 🙂
Thank you sir for your continuing strong support for the Helium DAO with all you do, even if you are (no insinuations here of course) voting for the incorrect HIP, which is HIP-81. 😉 If we grow IOT and MOBILE enough, it doesn’t really matter whether we go with HIP-80 or HIP-81.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
It looks like that on the surface, in reality it’s a you scratch my back I scratch yours. It’s just the back scratch for mobile takes them doing work and actually using the network, and the back scratch for IoT is keeping a useless network propped up for 4 more years on the backs of mobile
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:51 AM
That's unfair to say. Iot has $50 miners onboarding fee will be lower to about $5-$10, 1663 is set up to attract Enterprise customers I would not call it a useless Network
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 8:51 AM
Mobile should smash DC usage straight away, 80 gives them even more of an advantage imo
💯 1
08:51
I have to vote for 81
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
You shouldn't be voting for hips based on the onboarding fee with the second having coming all onboarding fees are going to drop regardless of which way you vote for the current hips (edited)
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 8:52 AM
My assertion is that onboarding is the less risky way to influence than messing with the utility score. And I say messing because of the feedback swirl surrounding these calculations.
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
That's unfair to say. Iot has $50 miners onboarding fee will be lower to about $5-$10, 1663 is set up to attract Enterprise customers I would not call it a useless Network
If it’s not useless it doesn’t need the floor.
☝️ 2
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
It looks like that on the surface, in reality it’s a you scratch my back I scratch yours. It’s just the back scratch for mobile takes them doing work and actually using the network, and the back scratch for IoT is keeping a useless network propped up for 4 more years on the backs of mobile
The basic issue here is that opinions differ which network is more useless or despicable. That’s why HIP-80 proposes to give both a hand. It’s like balancing your investment portfolio. Unexpected things can happen, and then you’re happy you have friends.
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
That's unfair to say. Iot has $50 miners onboarding fee will be lower to about $5-$10, 1663 is set up to attract Enterprise customers I would not call it a useless Network
USEless. Meaning it’s not being used as intended. Just because it exists and the entry point to build it larger will become lower does not mean it’s being used and generating revenue
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
If it’s not useless it doesn’t need the floor.
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:53 AM
We agree there, iot does not need a floor, at the expense of capping mobile rewards
☝️ 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
We agree there, iot does not need a floor, at the expense of capping mobile rewards
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 8:56 AM
Iot needs a year or 2 imo, mobile is easier to win clients as there are existing devices, 1663 just got going
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
That's unfair to say. Iot has $50 miners onboarding fee will be lower to about $5-$10, 1663 is set up to attract Enterprise customers I would not call it a useless Network
Cutting onboarding fees = lower revenue. It doesn’t help the books unless there becomes 5-10x in gateway sales. And why would there be if the networks not being used for anything other than burning fees?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 8:56 AM
The floor here helped but the initial bump for moible swayed it too far one way straight away imo (edited)
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 8:59 AM
my thoughts as a mobile deployer, I know at migration it's going to look bad for mobile redemption and a lot of fud no matter which hip wins, it's inevitable because there is just no way with the current situation and I accept that, hip80 does not make it much better, but I'm willing to go all in and build, hoping that I will be rewarded handsomely in 2-3 years. but I refuse to accept a cap in the long term for putting in all that effort. so no hip80 for dangling that carrot in front of me. I'm voting for 81 where I get what I deserve. (edited)
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
The floor here helped but the initial bump for moible swayed it too far one way straight away imo (edited)
Just to make sure we’re on the same page. IMO HIP-80 proposes giving IOT 85% instead of 97% of HNT initially, in exchange for some protections later on. Do you feel that the drop from 97 to 85 poses a significant danger to IOT?
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 9:03 AM
Yes
👍 2
Avatar
Well, that’s a valid position to take. In my view it represents a scarcity mindset, while Helium is about an abundance mindset. But I think we can easily get into the weeds here.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 9:04 AM
Already dropped 20k of hotspots in the past month, it'll take months to fix paying everyone Vs those doing the work
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 9:05 AM
how does it look for other networks that want to join in the future when they see a cap and know their earnings are going to the grandfathered subdao
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/11/2023 9:05 AM
It's not forever?
09:06
Have we got any subdaos looking to join as well? Just curious
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
how does it look for other networks that want to join in the future when they see a cap and know their earnings are going to the grandfathered subdao
There will likely not be any new subDAOs if there are other subDAOs that are playing by different rules
Avatar
Avatar
Brainstormer
how does it look for other networks that want to join in the future when they see a cap and know their earnings are going to the grandfathered subdao
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 9:07 AM
It depends on the subDAO. If their intent is to get HNT without burning HNT they can game it cheaper and faster than Deeper did in the past. If their intent is to have a ton of data transfer they are better off making their own token or going elsewhere
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It depends on the subDAO. If their intent is to get HNT without burning HNT they can game it cheaper and faster than Deeper did in the past. If their intent is to have a ton of data transfer they are better off making their own token or going elsewhere
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 9:08 AM
Are you saying regardless of which hip there's just no incentive for any subdao in the future
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The basic issue here is that opinions differ which network is more useless or despicable. That’s why HIP-80 proposes to give both a hand. It’s like balancing your investment portfolio. Unexpected things can happen, and then you’re happy you have friends.
I agree both are useless at this point, despicable not so sure either are. Think there is a bit of a difference of where they are along their arcs no? It’s not really giving Mobile a hand though. This reminds me so much of a politician telling a person on welfare how much they’re helping them by increasing their food stamps
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 9:09 AM
I'm hoping we can have a mapper subdao
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 9:10 AM
I think it’s debatable if the incentives are make sense for a new subDAO as it is. 80 makes it really attractive for a dummy network to come in, collect a ton of HNT without burning any then move on
09:11
Imagine spending $500 and getting 7% of HNT emissions. We create that incentive here
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
I agree both are useless at this point, despicable not so sure either are. Think there is a bit of a difference of where they are along their arcs no? It’s not really giving Mobile a hand though. This reminds me so much of a politician telling a person on welfare how much they’re helping them by increasing their food stamps
It’s been very difficult to build consensus on this. There are lots of people saying “IOT is getting screwed”, and lots of people saying “MOBILE is getting screwed”. As neither HIP has a provision that funnels 10% of HNT emissions to me, I’m not sure how they can both be getting screwed at once. It’s just a divisive issue.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 9:13 AM
🤷‍♂️ Compromise is where no one is happy but everyone agrees.
Avatar
Brainstormer 04/11/2023 9:14 AM
There is a starting basis where everyone agreed that's hip 51. Hit 81 is trying to keep it the same
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 9:14 AM
Perhaps the guy saying MOBILE is getting screwed was doing so to negotiate for a higher floor despite passing no data?
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
I think control via onboarding is the less risky approach to supporting growth and mitigating network bias. (edited)
But that is wasted effort, and to really get to the level to get a flywheel going my low end estimates are 500k with more likely to be north of 1 m mobile onboarding at that level is unlikely in the short term
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It’s been very difficult to build consensus on this. There are lots of people saying “IOT is getting screwed”, and lots of people saying “MOBILE is getting screwed”. As neither HIP has a provision that funnels 10% of HNT emissions to me, I’m not sure how they can both be getting screwed at once. It’s just a divisive issue.
I’m not saying one network is getting screwed more than the other. I’m well into the 5 figures for both. I’m saying setting this floor/barrier around IoT without any real data is setting a precedent that is detrimental to the overall future of this project. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
But that is wasted effort, and to really get to the level to get a flywheel going my low end estimates are 500k with more likely to be north of 1 m mobile onboarding at that level is unlikely in the short term
EdB-charlietango 04/11/2023 9:18 AM
Just to clarify, you're speaking of 500k-1m mobile gateways onboarding?
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
I’m not saying one network is getting screwed more than the other. I’m well into the 5 figures for both. I’m saying setting this floor/barrier around IoT without any real data is setting a precedent that is detrimental to the overall future of this project. (edited)
It's merely replacing the A function and solidifying the runway in a way that is predictable which is really what IOT needs because if a signicant number of HS go offline which is a very likely scenario especially given what has been said by amir and others. That could cause the number to go below 200k possibly and that would compromise there score if mobile was to successful
Avatar
Avatar
Dawgnuts
I’m not saying one network is getting screwed more than the other. I’m well into the 5 figures for both. I’m saying setting this floor/barrier around IoT without any real data is setting a precedent that is detrimental to the overall future of this project. (edited)
Let me tell you one thing. I’ve spent weeks here trying to build consensus in the Helium DAO over a solution to this issue. It’s quite a slog. If we pass HIP-80, it has a single floor for all subDAOs besides IOT, which gives a bit of HNT to pre-revenue subDAOs. The amount they get goes down as total revenue grows. The special-case floor for IOT goes away after 4 years, and then the entry-level subsidy is the same for all subDAOs. No way in hell is somebody going to negotiate a new special-case additional subsidy for some new project.
👍🏻 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 9:31 AM
Unless they help get someone’s HIP passed and sneak it in.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Let me tell you one thing. I’ve spent weeks here trying to build consensus in the Helium DAO over a solution to this issue. It’s quite a slog. If we pass HIP-80, it has a single floor for all subDAOs besides IOT, which gives a bit of HNT to pre-revenue subDAOs. The amount they get goes down as total revenue grows. The special-case floor for IOT goes away after 4 years, and then the entry-level subsidy is the same for all subDAOs. No way in hell is somebody going to negotiate a new special-case additional subsidy for some new project.
But the issue at hand is not saving IoT with a 4 year barrier.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Click to see attachment 🖼️
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 11:55 AM
Can we just this model in excel form, please?
Avatar
I wanted to share with you the blog post on what HIP 80 and HIP 81 mean for hotspot owners. I would like to thank all for the information they shared, which greatly contributed to this post. The insights and discussions here were invaluable in helping shape the content. https://heliumgeek.com/faq/understanding-the-impact-of-hip80and-hip81-on-hotspot-owners.html
HeliumGeek provides quick snapshot of your hotspots. See if they are up and how well synchronized. Get prompt push notification alerts when they go down.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
riobah
I wanted to share with you the blog post on what HIP 80 and HIP 81 mean for hotspot owners. I would like to thank all for the information they shared, which greatly contributed to this post. The insights and discussions here were invaluable in helping shape the content. https://heliumgeek.com/faq/understanding-the-impact-of-hip80and-hip81-on-hotspot-owners.html
I have invested far more on the IoT side than I have on the Mobile side. Thus, I have much to lose if the Helium project does not succeed. That being said, although I respect Helium Geek’s opinion, I disagree with key conclusions in the blog. I voted in favor of HIP 80, and against HIP81, because I believe that HIP80 is the right approach for the Helium ecosystem. If it is in error, . . . it can be fixed. HIP80 will not cause Helium to fail. Others may disagree, and I respect their opinions too. But when opinions & conclusions differ, we simply vote as a community. For those who desire more vote power, consider increasing your planned stake duration. I am.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I have invested far more on the IoT side than I have on the Mobile side. Thus, I have much to lose if the Helium project does not succeed. That being said, although I respect Helium Geek’s opinion, I disagree with key conclusions in the blog. I voted in favor of HIP 80, and against HIP81, because I believe that HIP80 is the right approach for the Helium ecosystem. If it is in error, . . . it can be fixed. HIP80 will not cause Helium to fail. Others may disagree, and I respect their opinions too. But when opinions & conclusions differ, we simply vote as a community. For those who desire more vote power, consider increasing your planned stake duration. I am.
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 1:53 PM
Can you explain voting against 81? Are you against the idea of a minimum onboarding fee? Is it too high in 81 and you prefer the onboarding fee in 80 better? The votes weren’t supposed to be an either or situation. Just a yes or no on each. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can you explain voting against 81? Are you against the idea of a minimum onboarding fee? Is it too high in 81 and you prefer the onboarding fee in 80 better? The votes weren’t supposed to be an either or situation. Just a yes or no on each. (edited)
Max, I respect you as a person. We have even had side conversations in the past. I hope that this respect comes through clearly and is received. Looking over backscroll, is . . . ALOT. But I don’t wish to debate this HIP any further. It’s just time to vote and let the community decide. We are all on the same team. On to the next HIP I say. I suspect that both supporters of 80 & 81 have learned valuable insights throughout this debate. I know I have:) (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 2:02 PM
This isn’t about me, I’m asking for feedback on HIP-81 since you said you voted against it. Do you feel, if HIP-80 did not exist, that 81 has some flaw in it that is being overlooked? Not looking to debate, just looking for feedback.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
This isn’t about me, I’m asking for feedback on HIP-81 since you said you voted against it. Do you feel, if HIP-80 did not exist, that 81 has some flaw in it that is being overlooked? Not looking to debate, just looking for feedback.
The feedback that I and others have given have been presented. It’s in the backscroll clear as day. But I surmise it either fell on deaf ears, or was dismissed as irrelevant. The vote is not over until it’s over. Whatever the outcome, we band together and build this ecosystem.
💪 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 2:13 PM
I understand you prefer 80 to 81. What I’m asking is if 80 didn’t exist would you have voted yes or no on 81? If the answer is no, I’d like to understand what is being missed so things can be improved upon.
14:14
I apologize if I missed the things you have said on 81 in this channel. I don’t see anything from you in the 81 channel.
Avatar
I think this 80 vs 81 debate boils down mostly to a philosophical question as to how much should the Helium subdaos prop each other up. 80 leans more towards the idea that all subdaos should be guaranteed a decent amount of HNT in order to give them enough of a chance to grow and eventually take off. 81 takes more of a stance that subdaos need to stand on their own merits and contribute with dc burn to have a seat at the table and get any meaningful HNT. I think it’s fair to say there are pros and cons to both, but for me the decision comes down to the benefits of the Helium ecosystem itself. If a project is able to convince Helium that it’s worthy of becoming the next subdao, I think they’ll instantly be given a huge bump in interest and exposure from the entire Helium community that would otherwise be hard to come by. I mean how many of us would be aware of Wifi Dabba if not for Helium? I believe that in itself is a win for the subdao, and if this new subdao is good enough, it’ll have a strong chance to take off and thrive even without getting any free HNT from us. And as a result, I think HIP 81 supports this idea better than 80 does, and is ultimately the more efficient approach to allocating the HNT we have left to distribute.
Avatar
So, if I understand correctly, Iot has a 5x bonus for a period of 4 years. After those 4 years, the bonus disappears randomly?
Avatar
Avatar
Yassin
So, if I understand correctly, Iot has a 5x bonus for a period of 4 years. After those 4 years, the bonus disappears randomly?
It doesnt disappear randomly, it disappears because it has come to an end.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
It doesnt disappear randomly, it disappears because it has come to an end.
Wouldn't that cause the Iot coins to suddenly lose value? Would it perhaps be better if, for example, instead of going away all at once, it goes away gradually. So, for instance, after 2 years 5x, we could slowly reduce the percentage each day until we reach the 4-year mark. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 5:18 PM
1/ Helium Improvement Proposal 80 (#HIP80) aims to simplify the device scoring system for the Helium network, but it has several downfalls that could negatively impact the network's growth and security A🧵: $HNT #Helium
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can you explain voting against 81? Are you against the idea of a minimum onboarding fee? Is it too high in 81 and you prefer the onboarding fee in 80 better? The votes weren’t supposed to be an either or situation. Just a yes or no on each. (edited)
No matter if the votes were supposed to be an either or situation, what is done with the voting results is a 'either one or the other (or none) will be implemented.' situation.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
No matter if the votes were supposed to be an either or situation, what is done with the voting results is a 'either one or the other (or none) will be implemented.' situation.
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 5:19 PM
Yea just trying to figure out if people are voting like it’s an either/or or if there isn’t something wrong with the HIP in a vacuum. It seems to be the former (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea just trying to figure out if people are voting like it’s an either/or or if there isn’t something wrong with the HIP in a vacuum. It seems to be the former (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/11/2023 5:30 PM
It's the latter
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yea just trying to figure out if people are voting like it’s an either/or or if there isn’t something wrong with the HIP in a vacuum. It seems to be the former (edited)
These were the instructions given to vote. You think the instructions were incomplete or designed inappropriately? Did I miss something?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
These were the instructions given to vote. You think the instructions were incomplete or designed inappropriately? Did I miss something?
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 6:37 PM
No, I asked why you voted against 81 so I can better understand what the community doesn’t like about it. There wasn’t much time to get feedback on it before it went to a vote so the feedback is helpful
Avatar
Lol. Man. I don’t want to get into it again :). I’m sorry. I misunderstood your comment. I understood this as competing HIPs. If you vote for one, you should vote against the other. It’s how I interpreted it.
💯 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 6:41 PM
Thank you, I’m not trying to debate you on which is better, just trying to understand if there was something missing for 81.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I have invested far more on the IoT side than I have on the Mobile side. Thus, I have much to lose if the Helium project does not succeed. That being said, although I respect Helium Geek’s opinion, I disagree with key conclusions in the blog. I voted in favor of HIP 80, and against HIP81, because I believe that HIP80 is the right approach for the Helium ecosystem. If it is in error, . . . it can be fixed. HIP80 will not cause Helium to fail. Others may disagree, and I respect their opinions too. But when opinions & conclusions differ, we simply vote as a community. For those who desire more vote power, consider increasing your planned stake duration. I am.
Thank you for the note. I tried to stay neutral while I was stating what I learned from these channels. If there is sth wrong / missed there and if you’d like to let me know it’s more than welcomed, so we can update the post.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Lol. Man. I don’t want to get into it again :). I’m sorry. I misunderstood your comment. I understood this as competing HIPs. If you vote for one, you should vote against the other. It’s how I interpreted it.
Seeing as at least 50 people only voted for one, not everyone understood it that way
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Seeing as at least 50 people only voted for one, not everyone understood it that way
I noted that as well. Technically, I would expect to see similarities in vote power and numbers of voted wallets in both 80 & 81. But people will vote in the way that they deem fit. I'm truly pleased that people are voting regardless of how they vote. It speaks to a healthy community that is vested in long term success. It also stresses the importance of veHNT post migration, . . . at least to me 🙂 IMO, voting does matter. And those who lock up for longer durations of time, tend to have personal interests that are in line with the long term goals of this "network of networks". I still envision a future where HNT decouples from BTC due to abundant network usage from subNetworks like IoT, Mobile, hopefully Wi-Fi Dabba and more to come. Before I get yelled at, I know subDAO is the preferred description, but I like the word subNetwork, because it helps me explain it to my 80 year old dad on a paper napkin 🙂 The real test of his understanding will come during Christmas when I quiz him and challenge him to explain the helium ecosystem to me 🙂
😄 1
22:37
We will find out the results in ~4 days. Nothing is set in stone until the community says, "I have spoken." using their Kuiil voice from The Mandalorian 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
We will find out the results in ~4 days. Nothing is set in stone until the community says, "I have spoken." using their Kuiil voice from The Mandalorian 🙂
indeed.. so far they're saying "what have you been smoking" 😂
Avatar
Avatar
groot
indeed.. so far they're saying "what have you been smoking" 😂
We will see. It is far too early to gloat 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
We will see. It is far too early to gloat 🙂
not much to gloat over in this situation
👍 3
Avatar
We need to fix the voting.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
We will see. It is far too early to gloat 🙂
Max - Just Max 04/11/2023 11:37 PM
if the voting ended right now, neither would pass
Avatar
Is the data traffic data for Helium 5G purely fictitious or is there any basis? quantities of HNT or DC to be burned. 24 sec of speech like 1 DC or 1 SMS like 10 DC........
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
Click to see attachment 🖼️
Pricing of data on the Mobile network is different than on Lora. (See HIP 53) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Pricing of data on the Mobile network is different than on Lora. (See HIP 53) (edited)
DC= 24 bytes right? 66 ?
04:43
If you want to buy DC in Helium console and these are DC prices to burn. It has nothing to do with what you wrote. it's just for pricing. How much bill the user has to pay.
Avatar
1 DC = 24 bytes is for the IOT subDAO, the MOBILE subDAO has set pricing at $0.5 / GB
Avatar
Avatar
groot
1 DC = 24 bytes is for the IOT subDAO, the MOBILE subDAO has set pricing at $0.5 / GB
Shouldn't 1 DC be 1 DC everywhere? Will a separate DC be produced for Mobiel and a separate DC for IoT?
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/12/2023 4:58 AM
1 dc is 1dc .thats not what the subDAO are setting . DC is a arbitrary number
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
Shouldn't 1 DC be 1 DC everywhere? Will a separate DC be produced for Mobiel and a separate DC for IoT?
DC is the same everywhere: 1e-5 USD, the difference is how much data you get per DC (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/12/2023 5:01 AM
at $.5 per gb then mobile are paying 50kDC? per gb
👆 1
Avatar
Exactly. From the point of view of the entity paying for the service, DC has a similar function to a stablecoin. You have to get it, in Helium’s case by buying HNT however you like and then burning it to DC, and then you can use it to buy services. Its value is set at 1e-5 USD, as groot says. Unlike regular stablecoins, it’s not transferable, which lets it avoid lots of thorny regulatory issues. That’s not what Helium is for, so let the stablecoin people deal with that.
Avatar
@ferebee MO/DC amounts in your pink table, @groot I'm trying to understand how the MO/DC amounts in your table are calculated. 1DC=24 bytes for IoT, 66 bytes for Mobile. If these are not equal, these calculations do not matter. The amount of bytes I get for mobile with 1DC is 10,000 (ten thousand) times the amount of bytes I get for IoT. There is some arbitrariness in the calculations. they are not equivalent
Avatar
Both our models use $ equivalents
👆 1
Avatar
We are not considering bytes here. Bytes are not an economically relevant measure, and potential future subDAOs (such as WiFi Dabba) may have completely different pricing per byte as well.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Both our models use $ equivalents
ok i see it. What I don't see is how did you calculate $20,000K MO/DC? how it was calculated in the pink table. Do you both have the same calculation method and data?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
We are not considering bytes here. Bytes are not an economically relevant measure, and potential future subDAOs (such as WiFi Dabba) may have completely different pricing per byte as well.
Then you can't say DC burned for both. You say IoT DC burned, you call MDC something else for mobile. the two do not burn the same thing.
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
ok i see it. What I don't see is how did you calculate $20,000K MO/DC? how it was calculated in the pink table. Do you both have the same calculation method and data?
Hm. One column is headed “DC/mo”. That is intended to mean “Data Credits worth [in dollars] per month.” Perhaps you took mo to mean MO, French for mega-octet, a. k. a. MB or megabyte? If so, that was not intended, and I apologize for the confusion…
😂 1
Avatar
You and @groot have 1 DC each. You ask me for tomatoes, I give you 2 @groot 10 tomatoes. Does this sound fair to you?
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
You and @groot have 1 DC each. You ask me for tomatoes, I give you 2 @groot 10 tomatoes. Does this sound fair to you?
nosmaster89 04/12/2023 5:40 AM
your comparing tomatoes to oranges there
05:41
transfering data across diffrent mediums comes at a diffrent cost as @ferebee said a wifi subDAO may come along and that price would probably be cheaper than mobile
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
You and @groot have 1 DC each. You ask me for tomatoes, I give you 2 @groot 10 tomatoes. Does this sound fair to you?
The price of Data Transfer in the IOT network has been set since the beginning of the Helium network, as 1 DC, which costs $0.00001 to obtain, for one data packet. (Which may contain up to 24 bytes of data.) The price of Data Transfer in the MOBILE network was set by HIP-53 as $0.50 per GB of LTE/5G data, to be paid in Data Credits, which are obtained in the same way from HNT as for IOT, so 50,000 DC per GB of LTE/5G data.
✅ 1
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
your comparing tomatoes to oranges there
yes, that's what I call it, one tomato and one orange. they are not the same
Avatar
Each subDAO may set its price for Data Transfer (or potentially, other service, such as storage) in DC, however it likes. The users of the network must burn HNT to pay for the service.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
yes, that's what I call it, one tomato and one orange. they are not the same
nosmaster89 04/12/2023 5:44 AM
if you want to set the price cap at 0.00001 per dc for mobile then mobile might as well shut up shop . while i dont side with hip 80 or mobile (living outside usa) cost have to be justified
Avatar
So that’s why my tables and groot’s refer to USD when comparing DC Burn.
05:45
We don’t actually reference the amount of data transferred, in bytes, at all.
Avatar
I'm not good at explaining. 1 DC=24 bytes right? Shouldn't it be 24 bytes in mobile? I don't understand that it is used differently for mobile, different for iot
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
You and @groot have 1 DC each. You ask me for tomatoes, I give you 2 @groot 10 tomatoes. Does this sound fair to you?
A more suitable analogy would be: you have $1 and you walk into a shop and can choose to buy caviar or bread with it. Do you expect your $1 buys you the same amount (measured by weight) of caviar than it buys you bread?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
A more suitable analogy would be: you have $1 and you walk into a shop and can choose to buy caviar or bread with it. Do you expect your $1 buys you the same amount (measured by weight) of caviar than it buys you bread?
Don't go with 1 dollar go to the shop with 1 DC
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
I'm not good at explaining. 1 DC=24 bytes right? Shouldn't it be 24 bytes in mobile? I don't understand that it is used differently for mobile, different for iot
No. 1 DC = $0.00001. Data is offered at different rates on IOT and MOBILE. That is why your one DC buys different amounts of data on the different networks
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
No. 1 DC = $0.00001. Data is offered at different rates on IOT and MOBILE. That is why your one DC buys different amounts of data on the different networks
don't go to the shop with 1 dollar go to the shop with 1 DC
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
don't go to the shop with 1 dollar go to the shop with 1 DC
[deleted] To understand it better, think of DC as a currency that has only value within Helium. It is not a guarantee to buy the same amount of data everywhere within Helium. It is a currency that can be used to buy different types of data. Data can be priced differently. Think of it as a gift voucher. You buy a gift voucher paying, e.g. $1. That gift voucher buys you different amounts of bread or caviar. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
[deleted] To understand it better, think of DC as a currency that has only value within Helium. It is not a guarantee to buy the same amount of data everywhere within Helium. It is a currency that can be used to buy different types of data. Data can be priced differently. Think of it as a gift voucher. You buy a gift voucher paying, e.g. $1. That gift voucher buys you different amounts of bread or caviar. (edited)
There is a language barrier here (and google translate or equiv), I don't think Cari is intentionally not understanding the analogy.
👍 2
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
I'm not good at explaining. 1 DC=24 bytes right? Shouldn't it be 24 bytes in mobile? I don't understand that it is used differently for mobile, different for iot
The reason there is a difference between the amount of bytes you can buy with 1 DC is that the two technologies are different. Where IOT is long range low data rate, MOBILE is high data rate short range. This is the reason the data has a different price, without the difference data would be much too expensive on MOBILE to be competitive.
💯 1
😅 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The reason there is a difference between the amount of bytes you can buy with 1 DC is that the two technologies are different. Where IOT is long range low data rate, MOBILE is high data rate short range. This is the reason the data has a different price, without the difference data would be much too expensive on MOBILE to be competitive.
I could finally explain myself (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There is a language barrier here (and google translate or equiv), I don't think Cari is intentionally not understanding the analogy.
Thank you 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
if the voting ended right now, neither would pass
This would be a win for you?
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
don't go to the shop with 1 dollar go to the shop with 1 DC
One way that I explain this to my 80 year old dad on a paper napkin is, . . . Think of Data Credits as hotel points. If you wish to stay at the IoT hotel, it costs X amount of Data Credits. If you want to stay at the Mobile hotel, it costs Y data credits. Thus, in this example, staying at a hotel is analogous to moving data on either the IoT subNetwork or the Mobile subNetwork. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
One way that I explain this to my 80 year old dad on a paper napkin is, . . . Think of Data Credits as hotel points. If you wish to stay at the IoT hotel, it costs X amount of Data Credits. If you want to stay at the Mobile hotel, it costs Y data credits. Thus, in this example, staying at a hotel is analogous to moving data on either the IoT subNetwork or the Mobile subNetwork. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:54 AM
Would it kill you to use a reusable cloth napkin?
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
One way that I explain this to my 80 year old dad on a paper napkin is, . . . Think of Data Credits as hotel points. If you wish to stay at the IoT hotel, it costs X amount of Data Credits. If you want to stay at the Mobile hotel, it costs Y data credits. Thus, in this example, staying at a hotel is analogous to moving data on either the IoT subNetwork or the Mobile subNetwork. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The reason there is a difference between the amount of bytes you can buy with 1 DC is that the two technologies are different. Where IOT is long range low data rate, MOBILE is high data rate short range. This is the reason the data has a different price, without the difference data would be much too expensive on MOBILE to be competitive.
I kind of miss some long years I was not paying for mobile data, but getting crazy quota and speed 🙂
Avatar
Fully ported over to @helium_mobile. Get ready. It's coming for your phone... $MOBILE $HNT
💯 4
🎈 6
LF5G 2
🎉 1
Avatar
Great to see these updates, now let's go!
Avatar
plainsimpletech 04/12/2023 1:06 PM
Got a question on a component of this being the DC and the consumption model coupled with the region that this can be consumed in. These are different in IoT and Mobile. The IoT consumption model for DC would be comparable or less than/greater than Mobile? The region that IoT is utilised in is International compared to at the minute being the USA (?) for Mobile? We have a limited supply of HNT and a halving coming up this year (I may be conflating my question with this item but it does help me understand) and therefore under the modelling does the consumption model of Mobile affect greatly the IoT subDAO IoT (is it a coin?) bucket available? If Mobile expands into other regions does it affect the USA region?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Khaboom 🥂 04/12/2023 1:06 PM
I went to hellohelium.com but I don’t see where you can check compatibility?
Avatar
Avatar
Khaboom 🥂
I went to hellohelium.com but I don’t see where you can check compatibility?
Just look up if your phone has band 48 and esim (edited)
👍🏻 1
13:08
Lol
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
please no price discussion as per the #rules
Avatar
Here comes keenan
😆 1
Avatar
Khaboom 🥂 04/12/2023 1:08 PM
👍🏻
Avatar
damn im good
👆 1
😱 1
Avatar
Khaboom 🥂 04/12/2023 1:09 PM
I think I’m getting sensory for posting facts. 😂
13:09
Sensored
Avatar
multiverse_Elmo 04/12/2023 1:10 PM
Sounds like you are getting touchy, smelly, feely with facts. Sounds weird.
😆 2
Avatar
Khaboom 🥂 04/12/2023 1:10 PM
😂
Avatar
Avatar
plainsimpletech
Got a question on a component of this being the DC and the consumption model coupled with the region that this can be consumed in. These are different in IoT and Mobile. The IoT consumption model for DC would be comparable or less than/greater than Mobile? The region that IoT is utilised in is International compared to at the minute being the USA (?) for Mobile? We have a limited supply of HNT and a halving coming up this year (I may be conflating my question with this item but it does help me understand) and therefore under the modelling does the consumption model of Mobile affect greatly the IoT subDAO IoT (is it a coin?) bucket available? If Mobile expands into other regions does it affect the USA region?
Its the HIP51 DAO utility score and the D value is the square root of the total USD burned for data transfer. Which for IOT is $0.00001 per 24 bytes and for MOBILE is $0.50 for 1 Gbyte. No region consideration. (edited)
13:17
It just adds the floor
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Its the HIP51 DAO utility score and the D value is the square root of the total USD burned for data transfer. Which for IOT is $0.00001 per 24 bytes and for MOBILE is $0.50 for 1 Gbyte. No region consideration. (edited)
plainsimpletech 04/12/2023 1:17 PM
Thanks - will research more my end.
Avatar
Avatar
waveform
Its the HIP51 DAO utility score and the D value is the square root of the total USD burned for data transfer. Which for IOT is $0.00001 per 24 bytes and for MOBILE is $0.50 for 1 Gbyte. No region consideration. (edited)
I get overexcited with the zeroes too sometimes. It’s still $0.00001 😅 (edited)
🙏 1
RedBalloon 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I get overexcited with the zeroes too sometimes. It’s still $0.00001 😅 (edited)
you're down one now 😂
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I get overexcited with the zeroes too sometimes. It’s still $0.00001 😅 (edited)
I keep thinking 5 0's not 5 digits after the .
Avatar
unless I can't count it's 1e-5: 0.00001
Avatar
zeroes are hard
Avatar
I have to admit I just typed 1e-5 and copied the result 🤫
Avatar
Like Easter eggs. Same shape too.
13:37
The more we all type wrong values and correct them afterwards, the more people will be confused but also learn the correct value. LFG
Avatar
I'm switching to 🦀 styling: 0.000_01 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I'm switching to 🦀 styling: 0.000_01 (edited)
it's still wrong coolcry
Avatar
I'm also the guy who keeps track of Quarts vs Liters with the neumonic "its a liter bit more than a quart"
Avatar
Avatar
groot
it's still wrong coolcry
dang it! fixed (edited)
Avatar
This will be the death of us all.
Avatar
if you're going to do it wrong at least have them overpay 😏
Avatar
DC to 1.00 thinkies
😵 1
coolcry 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I'm also the guy who keeps track of Quarts vs Liters with the neumonic "its a liter bit more than a quart"
Well thanks a million for that. I knew it to be true already but now I have proof.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Well thanks a million for that. I knew it to be true already but now I have proof.
i'm glad the scientific consensus is settled now
17:55
I just want to thank everyone for voting by the way and I feel like we are heading in the right direction but if you have not voted yet please do so and again thank you for your continued support
Avatar
@thoughtcodex HI there, I would like to offer a a counter point to some of Max's arguments, the main one being that we are using assumptions to build our models, we have gone through everything and designed this to both be as simple as possible but also being self correcting. although hip 51-53 were designed well they did not take into account lots of factors that they could not have known at the time, the main one being that mobile data would be coming out til at least late May, but also the inherent instability of the A score (number of hotspots with onboarding fees) which as many know about 50% of all hotspots are offline, and if this number falls further which we expect to happen, then IOT will not be properly protected if MOBILE takes of leaving it with to little of a share of the pie to survive so a compromise was struck that IOT will give up short term earnings to boost MOBILE and in return IOT will get a 4year runway, in the wildest versions that we can imagen this sets up the earning potential to be stable and fair, we know not everyone is happy with this but it really solves lots of problems, I am always happy to discuss this further my self and Ferebee will be happy to answer any questions.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
@thoughtcodex HI there, I would like to offer a a counter point to some of Max's arguments, the main one being that we are using assumptions to build our models, we have gone through everything and designed this to both be as simple as possible but also being self correcting. although hip 51-53 were designed well they did not take into account lots of factors that they could not have known at the time, the main one being that mobile data would be coming out til at least late May, but also the inherent instability of the A score (number of hotspots with onboarding fees) which as many know about 50% of all hotspots are offline, and if this number falls further which we expect to happen, then IOT will not be properly protected if MOBILE takes of leaving it with to little of a share of the pie to survive so a compromise was struck that IOT will give up short term earnings to boost MOBILE and in return IOT will get a 4year runway, in the wildest versions that we can imagen this sets up the earning potential to be stable and fair, we know not everyone is happy with this but it really solves lots of problems, I am always happy to discuss this further my self and Ferebee will be happy to answer any questions.
Is the safe floor for iot static or does the formula change with new subdao entries?
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Is the safe floor for iot static or does the formula change with new subdao entries?
It is static however it is completly relational to how mobile does
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
It is static however it is completly relational to how mobile does
Thx
Avatar
Ok, I just read through both hip's. A bit ashamed to admit these are the first hips I'll actually be voting on (in my defense, I think they're the first ones to actually be contentious since that 1000:1 redenomination hip). Going to vote Yes on 80 and No on 81. Only minor nit I have with 80 is I would have made the initial "founder" advantage to IoT even more explicit (e.g. whatever the numbers come out to, IoT SubDAO gets at least XX% of emissions until 2027). I trust they've run the numbers though and it essentially accomplishes something like that with the 40 floor.
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Ok, I just read through both hip's. A bit ashamed to admit these are the first hips I'll actually be voting on (in my defense, I think they're the first ones to actually be contentious since that 1000:1 redenomination hip). Going to vote Yes on 80 and No on 81. Only minor nit I have with 80 is I would have made the initial "founder" advantage to IoT even more explicit (e.g. whatever the numbers come out to, IoT SubDAO gets at least XX% of emissions until 2027). I trust they've run the numbers though and it essentially accomplishes something like that with the 40 floor.
thank you for taking the time to vote and taking the time to understand it, and yes we have done the best we can with what is available to us today.
Avatar
Another hugely important thing in hip 80 to me is the sqrt'ing of the V factor. Leaving it linear from a game theoretic perspective just never made sense to me. It dominates all the other factors, *especially *the quartic rooted A factor, if a SubDAO were to achieve 95%+ veHNT that essentially crushes the other one, even if the other has way more activity, e.g. 50x the A score and 5x the D score. You basically get a flywheel effect in reverse, where lower veHNT staked against a subDAO means less HNT rewards to that treasury, means less investment in the subDAO means less use on that subDAO, and dimmer long term growth prospects, means less people delegate to it... The sqrt on the V really helps restrain this effect. Under the hip 80 change, assuming an equal D factor (both subDAO's providing great data transfer value), a 95% veHNT delegation on means the other subDAO still gets 20% emissions, so lower, but not crushingly lower...
👆🏼 1
19:27
Cutting out the A score entirely is also the right move, it adds very little after move to Solana, except complexity and all sorts of ways for shenanigans and unintended consequences.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
@thoughtcodex HI there, I would like to offer a a counter point to some of Max's arguments, the main one being that we are using assumptions to build our models, we have gone through everything and designed this to both be as simple as possible but also being self correcting. although hip 51-53 were designed well they did not take into account lots of factors that they could not have known at the time, the main one being that mobile data would be coming out til at least late May, but also the inherent instability of the A score (number of hotspots with onboarding fees) which as many know about 50% of all hotspots are offline, and if this number falls further which we expect to happen, then IOT will not be properly protected if MOBILE takes of leaving it with to little of a share of the pie to survive so a compromise was struck that IOT will give up short term earnings to boost MOBILE and in return IOT will get a 4year runway, in the wildest versions that we can imagen this sets up the earning potential to be stable and fair, we know not everyone is happy with this but it really solves lots of problems, I am always happy to discuss this further my self and Ferebee will be happy to answer any questions.
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 7:30 PM
Yea quick question. You’ve said Tushar Jain was a co-author on this HIP. Can you point to the specific parts of the HIP he worked on?
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Another hugely important thing in hip 80 to me is the sqrt'ing of the V factor. Leaving it linear from a game theoretic perspective just never made sense to me. It dominates all the other factors, *especially *the quartic rooted A factor, if a SubDAO were to achieve 95%+ veHNT that essentially crushes the other one, even if the other has way more activity, e.g. 50x the A score and 5x the D score. You basically get a flywheel effect in reverse, where lower veHNT staked against a subDAO means less HNT rewards to that treasury, means less investment in the subDAO means less use on that subDAO, and dimmer long term growth prospects, means less people delegate to it... The sqrt on the V really helps restrain this effect. Under the hip 80 change, assuming an equal D factor (both subDAO's providing great data transfer value), a 95% veHNT delegation on means the other subDAO still gets 20% emissions, so lower, but not crushingly lower...
yes very true we spent a lot of time Ferebee did most of the work I just pointed out some flaws and so outlier simulations that would be problematic
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Ok, I just read through both hip's. A bit ashamed to admit these are the first hips I'll actually be voting on (in my defense, I think they're the first ones to actually be contentious since that 1000:1 redenomination hip). Going to vote Yes on 80 and No on 81. Only minor nit I have with 80 is I would have made the initial "founder" advantage to IoT even more explicit (e.g. whatever the numbers come out to, IoT SubDAO gets at least XX% of emissions until 2027). I trust they've run the numbers though and it essentially accomplishes something like that with the 40 floor.
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 7:38 PM
The HIPs aren’t competing with each other. Voting no on 81 means you are against the onboard floor being proposed in 80.
Avatar
Ok, I'm confused then. The announcement says: "If both pass, then a selection rule will govern: the HIP with the greater HNT vote power will be adopted."
😂 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 7:43 PM
We’re supposed to vote as if the other HIP doesn’t exist. There is a scenario where neither passes and the MOBILE subDAO issue persists
❌ 1
19:43
Which, because of the confusion, if the voting ended right now, would be the result.
Avatar
But if they both pass the one with the most votes gets adopted. I do think HIP 81 is improvement over current approach, my inclination is to make sure at least one of them gets over 2/3 but I'd want hip 80 to win out over 81.... Uhg... too complicated to think through now, gonna grab a beer and sleep on it :-).
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
But if they both pass the one with the most votes gets adopted. I do think HIP 81 is improvement over current approach, my inclination is to make sure at least one of them gets over 2/3 but I'd want hip 80 to win out over 81.... Uhg... too complicated to think through now, gonna grab a beer and sleep on it :-).
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 7:47 PM
But if people keep voting for 80 and against 81 we create a scenario where neither passes. Voting against 81 doesn’t help 80 since pass percentage doesn’t matter, total votes matters (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
glenvarsity 04/12/2023 7:47 PM
Is there a link on where to go to vote?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 7:48 PM
Heliumvote.com
Avatar
glenvarsity 04/12/2023 7:49 PM
Thanks
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But if people keep voting for 80 and against 81 we create a scenario where neither passes. Voting against 81 doesn’t help 80 since pass percentage doesn’t matter, total votes matters (edited)
Ah, interesting. It says "most votes" not "highest percentage". So you could theoretically have a case where both pass, one has a higher percentage of passing but still loses to the other with a lower percentage but has more yes votes in absolute terms.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 7:54 PM
Correct.
Avatar
In that case, I'd like to propose a hip vote to simplify the hip voting process...
😂 5
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Ah, interesting. It says "most votes" not "highest percentage". So you could theoretically have a case where both pass, one has a higher percentage of passing but still loses to the other with a lower percentage but has more yes votes in absolute terms.
ya this is a really interesting situation as far as I am aware this is a first, but some solutions need to be put to vote and lots of votes are queing for after merge so I officially call it voting season
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 7:56 PM
Which parts did Tushar consult on?
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
In that case, I'd like to propose a hip vote to simplify the hip voting process...
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 7:58 PM
HIP-82 No Dueling HIPs
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP-82 No Dueling HIPs
Or..... Resolve all conflicting HIPS by a Helium Duel... each side gives their best argument while breathing in from helium balloons, first side to laugh or pass out loses...
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But if people keep voting for 80 and against 81 we create a scenario where neither passes. Voting against 81 doesn’t help 80 since pass percentage doesn’t matter, total votes matters (edited)
BTW, One is passing right now, and more votes are on the way. Regardless of the semantics used, the two HIPs are indeed competing.
20:26
20:27
The community is not dumb. This sort of tweet doesn’t drum up support for HIP81.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:27 PM
Avatar
The community knows who wrote the HIPs. It’s listed.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:28 PM
That’s not what is being communicated
20:28
I think that’s a pretty important thing to figure out if that was a legitimate statement
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think that’s a pretty important thing to figure out if that was a legitimate statement
im sorry this is just political mud slinging
🙄 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:30 PM
So he didn’t consult on the HIP?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think that’s a pretty important thing to figure out if that was a legitimate statement
Max, again I say that the community is not dumb. They know to read. Even misleading tweets don’t make a big impact in the vote.
😆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:32 PM
So you don’t care that people are drumming up support for their HIP by saying others were involved but “don’t want to get involved” and instead the person figuring out if that is true or not is the problem?
Avatar
People evaluate the commenting HIPs based on their understanding of the material presented in each HIP.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:33 PM
Oh come on
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
So you don’t care that people are drumming up support for their HIP by saying others were involved but “don’t want to get involved” and instead the person figuring out if that is true or not is the problem?
I’m saying this is irrelevant
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:33 PM
So why do you have an issue with asking Tushar?
20:34
It shouldn’t matter. However, if he wasn’t involved and people voted a certain way because they thought he was, shouldn’t we get to the bottom of it?
20:35
Like think objectively here for one minute
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
So why do you have an issue with asking Tushar?
If you want to have an understanding of who is supporting HIP 80, just look at the temp check. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093948548992749598
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:36 PM
You should check when some of those people joined discord
20:36
I really just want to know if Tushar Jain consulted on the HIP.
20:37
Because I’ve been told he did and the authors are going around telling people he did
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
So why do you have an issue with asking Tushar?
There are reasons why Tushar doesn’t need to be brought into each conversation. Just let it go. I don’t base my decisions on what Tushar says, we have tussled in the past 🙂 But I do respect his opinion as I respect the opinions of many others in discord. If HIP80 or 81 wins, it will be based on its merits. Not some rumor.
🤣 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:40 PM
You’re changing the discussion. I am just asking if he was part of the HIP and if so which parts.
20:41
That should be a really easy question to answer since gateholder is going around telling people he was
20:41
If it didn’t matter, he wouldn’t tell people that
20:42
This is quite possibly the worst hill for you to die on. Good night. Let me know if you find out what part he consulted on.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
This is quite possibly the worst hill for you to die on. Good night. Let me know if you find out what part he consulted on.
Only part Tushar consulted on was the part where he denied that the max(1, …) had any meaning and therefore the reasoning behind the max(7, …) was bs.
20:44
Not really consulting if he answers a question of a non-author and the author has to rewrite his HIP though.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Because I’ve been told he did and the authors are going around telling people he did
“The authors are going around telling people he did.” Really? This is your argument as to why HIP81 is superior? The community is smarter than that Max. They really are and they vote intelligently too. Both sides. At some point we have to get beyond the drama and small stuff. The vote will be over soon. Thank goodness.
facepalm 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:45 PM
No, I didn’t mention HIP-81 at all.
20:46
I asked Tushar if he wrote HIP-80, on twitter (edited)
20:49
I asked gateholder to clarify his statement after he said he’s here to answer any questions
20:50
A simple yes or no question asking someone clarify a screenshot of them saying something in large telegram chats to drum up support for their HIP is some how “political mud slinging?”
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
“The authors are going around telling people he did.” Really? This is your argument as to why HIP81 is superior? The community is smarter than that Max. They really are and they vote intelligently too. Both sides. At some point we have to get beyond the drama and small stuff. The vote will be over soon. Thank goodness.
I wonder at which point you start being disappointed in the lies instead of in the people calling them out… your objectivity on this one is pretty clouded, no offense.
💯 2
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I wonder at which point you start being disappointed in the lies instead of in the people calling them out… your objectivity on this one is pretty clouded, no offense.
I don’t know what the truth is. Or if the comment is exaggerated or embellished or the person who said it was misinformed. My objectivity is not clouded. Not at all. This is some he said she said nonsense that is irrational and immaterial. The true authors of HIP80 & 81 are listed for public review. If Tushar made a comment and it led to a HIPs improvement great. But it really doesn’t matter does it? The HIPs speak for themselves. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:58 PM
I don’t know the truth either. That’s why I’m asking.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I don’t know what the truth is. Or if the comment is exaggerated or embellished or the person who said it was misinformed. My objectivity is not clouded. Not at all. This is some he said she said nonsense that is irrational and immaterial. The true authors of HIP80 & 81 are listed for public review. If Tushar made a comment and it led to a HIPs improvement great. But it really doesn’t matter does it? The HIPs speak for themselves. (edited)
Well, essentially the point you’ve been repeating the last few days is “who cares they lie and fud, the HIP speaks for itself”. I think that’s a bs position to take.
💯 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 8:59 PM
Especially when the HIP relies heavily on assumptions. It’s kinda important to know how trustworthy those assumptions are
Avatar
multiverse_Elmo 04/12/2023 9:00 PM
I cannot confirm or deny that I was also consulted for HIP 80.
😄 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 9:01 PM
We were told HIP had to remove the A score due to engineering constraints. When I had a call with the engineering team those constraints did not actually exist.
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Well, essentially the point you’ve been repeating the last few days is “who cares they lie and fud, the HIP speaks for itself”. I think that’s a bs position to take.
Here’s how I see it and I’m going to be done with this topic. We know who the authors are. They are stated in the HIPs. If you want more clarity from Tushar, tag him and ask him. Get full clarity directly from him. I won’t tag him on it because it is irrelevant to me and how I vote. But if it’s relevant to you, ask him.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 9:03 PM
I did, you called me out for it
21:03
I was asking Tushar and gateholder to clarify. Not sure why you got involved
21:04
Can gateholder just save us some time?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I was asking Tushar and gateholder to clarify. Not sure why you got involved
I got involved cause I saw the tweet and drew my own conclusions as to the motive. It’s all good.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I got involved cause I saw the tweet and drew my own conclusions as to the motive. It’s all good.
rules for thee but not for me.. you can’t keep cherry picking who gets the “doesn’t matter HIP speak for itself” and who gets the “lets bash this statement” 🤷
Avatar
Avatar
groot
rules for thee but not for me.. you can’t keep cherry picking who gets the “doesn’t matter HIP speak for itself” and who gets the “lets bash this statement” 🤷
I yield to your point. What is immaterial to me, may be very material to another. I concede that and will let it go. I don’t vote on a HIP based on who the authors are, but rather the content. I suspect others vote using similar logic, while others may vote based on different factors. That’s their choice and right. It’s late, and I have a flight tomorrow. It’s MotoGP time in Austin:)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/12/2023 9:31 PM
Multiple trips to Austin this month?
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I yield to your point. What is immaterial to me, may be very material to another. I concede that and will let it go. I don’t vote on a HIP based on who the authors are, but rather the content. I suspect others vote using similar logic, while others may vote based on different factors. That’s their choice and right. It’s late, and I have a flight tomorrow. It’s MotoGP time in Austin:)
Sounds like a fun weekend, have fun 👍
🍻 1
Avatar
You guys are too fricken smart to be bantering like this. It’s exhausting to read even. It accomplishes nothing except the banter. What a waste of time and energy.
💯 1
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
You guys are too fricken smart to be bantering like this. It’s exhausting to read even. It accomplishes nothing except the banter. What a waste of time and energy.
Well, I have learned a thing or two about the HIP process and will think twice about writing another one
🙁 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Well, I have learned a thing or two about the HIP process and will think twice about writing another one
I understand where you are coming from, brother! 😃 Presenting complicated subject matter in a way that is “fair”, “correct”, and easy to understand to an audience that, lucky them, spends most of their time thinking about things other than HIPs, is quite challenging. I’ve made my share of missteps here, and keep learning along the way.
Avatar
I am worried about the follow-on effects of this HIP but I am having troubles voicing my concerns without sounding like I am just bad-mouthing the work behind the HIP or the off-channel actions of one of its proponents. So hopefully any reader of the next couple of posts is willing to grant me a little leeway in my approach knowing that I am really trying hard not to do that. The stated motivations of the HIP concern me; they seem solely fear-based rather than truly economic guardrails. One paragraph says IoT had such a head start and has such a massive number of devices that Mobile is going to be strangled out of the gate; and as such, we need protect it. The next paragraph is that Mobile is going to be such a runaway success that IoT is going to be over-run within weeks; and as such, we need to protect it. The next paragraph is that we need to be concerned about if the community feels so strongly about one or the other subDAOs that they might allocate all of their veHNT to just one of the subDAOs; and as such, we need to protect against it. This approach really bums me out. What enamors me about decentralized token-incentive projects is that they reward meritocracy. More effort, more work, and more success is rewarded with more tokens. This HIP really feels like an economic sellout. Guaranteed continued support for IOT, protected head start for every new subDAO, and a guarantee against not being loved by the community. Participation trophies for every subDAO.
👆 1
01:57
So how do I model out some scenarios to "prove" my point? I am struggling. There are just too many variables that are unknown at this point.
01:58
I feel like I am just making up an outcome that may or may not come to fruition to sell my point. Not ideal.
01:59
Which then makes me worried that is exactly what happened to generate this HIP. Possible outcomes, not likely ones nor black swan events, were used to justify the plan of the HIP.
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/13/2023 2:02 AM
Its 2023 everyone needs a participation trophy look at the resistance to first to respond . People don't care on the network only Thier personal investment
👆 1
👎 1
❌ 1
Avatar
Let's start with Mobile; probably the one I am most comfortable arguing about and the one I am most fundamentally investing in (that said, my group has a nicely-sized fleet of LoRaWAN hotspots too). We all bought a lot of equipment and have been sitting on them for a very long time. Not good. Expensive. Arguably a significant waste of opportunity cost. Helium Mobile has been super late on everything so far. Probably they will continue to be late at each step of the way. The goal they are trying to achieve is massive and amazing and super difficult. So I completely understand. 5G mobile requires an enormous amount of patience. There is no way we are getting there fast. To protect it because it is going to be slow out of the gate is, in my opinion, a ridiculous policy. Mobile is running a marathon. It will be eclipsed by the size of the IoT subDAO for a long time. We all knew that from the beginning. There is zero reason to protect it. No economic welfare needs to be given to the Mobile subDAO. This HIP does just that. (edited)
👆 2
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 2:07 AM
Sorta, it gives mobile earnings out the gate too
02:07
Where as 51/81 don't
02:09
It also spirs my thinking (80) to setup a Dao and get minimum earnings, eg leading a mappers dao or the likes and there's no rush to get to burn
Avatar
Mobile is going to succeed. Well, it should; whether it actually does is left up to the subDAO. If it succeeds it should and will get more rewards. If it doesn't succeed out of the gate, it should NOT get any rewards. Meritocracy as a policy has a down side...if you don't work harder, smarter, and succeed well, you don't get rewards.
02:10
It almost offends me that Mobile is being handed an escalator up from this HIP. It does not need it. It shouldn't get it.
Avatar
Omer-xCasp3r 04/13/2023 2:12 AM
So in order to pass this HIP, it needs 66.67% , right?
👍 1
Avatar
All that said, if the community decides that Mobile is the end all be all of subDAOs and every veHNT is allocated to it because everything points to success, then so be it. Great job Mobile. That support is fragile though! That is, it is free to switch your allocation; no cost to your land rush bonus. One false start and the preponderance of the community could switch allegiances overnight. Too bad Mobile, so sad. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. It decentralized token-incentive projects, that is way it should be. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Omer-xCasp3r
So in order to pass this HIP, it needs 66.67% , right?
true for any HIP; well, that is the default requirement to pass.
👍 1
Avatar
Regarding IoT. Why are we taking a pretty elegant measure of investment, the A factor in the subDAO Utility Score, and removing its fairly sizable inherent protection factor (one that already shows that it is succeeding; that is, $40 million in investment) and trading it in for a fixed economic welfare plan? Simply guaranteeing that it gets most of the HNT emissions going forward for four years; regardless if it does well, shits the bed, or just saunters along. IoT has earned 60%+ of all the HNT so far. Thumbs up! It just solved an amazing chicken-or-egg problem (that was a little more than a year ago?), why are we being so impatient about its steady march towards success? If it doesn't do as well as it has for a few years, well so be it. Anyone that quits during the next couple of years was never really a member of the clan; they were just here to get rich quick. We don't need to coddle IoT. We don't need to coddle Mobile. We won't have to coddle Mappers or WiFI. In fact, I would argue we shouldn't coddle; work harder on them, work smarter, provide an elegant solution and hope meritocracy recognizes the efforts.
👆 3
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Regarding IoT. Why are we taking a pretty elegant measure of investment, the A factor in the subDAO Utility Score, and removing its fairly sizable inherent protection factor (one that already shows that it is succeeding; that is, $40 million in investment) and trading it in for a fixed economic welfare plan? Simply guaranteeing that it gets most of the HNT emissions going forward for four years; regardless if it does well, shits the bed, or just saunters along. IoT has earned 60%+ of all the HNT so far. Thumbs up! It just solved an amazing chicken-or-egg problem (that was a little more than a year ago?), why are we being so impatient about its steady march towards success? If it doesn't do as well as it has for a few years, well so be it. Anyone that quits during the next couple of years was never really a member of the clan; they were just here to get rich quick. We don't need to coddle IoT. We don't need to coddle Mobile. We won't have to coddle Mappers or WiFI. In fact, I would argue we shouldn't coddle; work harder on them, work smarter, provide an elegant solution and hope meritocracy recognizes the efforts.
nosmaster89 04/13/2023 2:24 AM
Make sure your coping text this big before sending it or wick might delete it
✅ 1
Avatar
This HIP feels like a generous welfare program. An economic protection act for those that invested a ton of money and effort very early and made some bold decisions that might have been incorrect. This HIP seems to me to be rewarding impatience and fear. It will lock us into providing the welfare for subDAOs that are significantly underperforming. It will suffocate any subDAO other than IoT that becomes a rocket early in its existence. It removes the wildly successful first mover advantage that IoT has and deserves for getting us this far.
👆 1
02:36
One last point. The subDAOs are sort of competing against each other as they fight for ever increasing portions of the HNT emissions. That is OK. But if any of the subDAOs wins, every other subDAO member benefits too. The value that each subDAO brings to the project pushes value up into the Helium DAO. HIP51 does a rather good job of socializing the wins and privatizing the losses. Let's be very careful when we make changes to the V * D * A equation. Getting rid of the A and weakening the effect of the V seems very risky given all of the unknowns we have right now. (edited)
👆 1
02:39
This is coopetition. The pie is big and is made bigger by the success of any of the subDAOs. Given the participants between subDAOs are not the same, there will be some fighting for the slices of the pizza. But if we do this right, we can make the pizza big enough for all of us to get our share (and potentially some big slices).
02:41
If a subDAO should go, it should be done. No welfare. Add value to the project or be gone. If a subDAO is a blazing rocket to the moon, well then, we stand aside and let it eat a bunch of the pizza. [Let's see how many metaphors I can get in here 🙂 ]
02:43
If a subDAO is slow-walking up the mountain, then it will need to deal with only a few slices for now. When it makes the mountain top, it will be celebrated and the pie will be made bigger.
02:44
I am just worried this HIP is not going to be helpful to making the pie bigger. It is dividing the pie up now and basing the portions on the size of the pie today rather than how big it can be tomorrow.
👆 1
02:48
So, back to how do I model out my rant without just making up variables and distribution ratios of veHNT that prove my point. How do I do it? I am completely willing to spend hours building out a spreadsheet. How do I fairly pick the variables? I can easily pick numbers to shit on this HIP and then pick a different set that fuels the flames of fear to prove we must provide a welfare program.
02:53
. One practical question I have, that Chris can probably answer easily...the HIP requires that the subDAO enforce onboarding fees. What happens to a hotspot that doesn't pay? What does the DAO do if the subDAO doesn't enforce? What if the subDAO goes beyond not enforcing and actually exploits? Slashing of the treasury? So, individual members can not pay and the group suffers? Socialize the losses it seems. (edited)
03:00
Both HIP80 and HIP81 concern me from the standpoint of setting rather low minimum onboarding fees. The tokenomics of the project benefits from the burning of tokens. While that shouldn't be a primary goal, there is a definite incentive to keep the onboarding fees as high as can be tolerated by the participants of the subDAO. $5? That is not a meaningful entry fee for the privilege of participating in the project. It is close enough to zero, that some future HIP is going to be about just making it $0. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot this early by giving away the farm. [got one more metaphor in!]. (edited)
👆 1
03:02
[I am not going to win a lot of friends shouting for a policy of "charge us more!" and "shouldn't we charge us as much as we can tolerate?"] (edited)
03:05
Hopefully you the reader see how I very purposefully chose the pronouns in "shouldn't we charge us as much as we can tolerate?" This project is us. We are the they imposing the rules and rewards. WAO. WAGMI. Powered by Helium FTW. (edited)
03:12
By the way, I do want to give a shout out to @ferebee for his efforts in writing and defending this HIP. His contribution is very admiral and I greatly appreciate his participation in the project. This is only the second time I have ever thought he was wrong (and I think he spends as much of a ridiculous amount of time that I do here; so he very much has a winning average). I am not attacking him for it in any sense. Our differences are what contributes to the overall success of the project. This is a battle of ideas not people. (edited)
03:17
Regardless of my opinion or your opinion of HIP81 or the off-channel actions of one of its proponents, I do not think we should be passing HIP80.
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I am worried about the follow-on effects of this HIP but I am having troubles voicing my concerns without sounding like I am just bad-mouthing the work behind the HIP or the off-channel actions of one of its proponents. So hopefully any reader of the next couple of posts is willing to grant me a little leeway in my approach knowing that I am really trying hard not to do that. The stated motivations of the HIP concern me; they seem solely fear-based rather than truly economic guardrails. One paragraph says IoT had such a head start and has such a massive number of devices that Mobile is going to be strangled out of the gate; and as such, we need protect it. The next paragraph is that Mobile is going to be such a runaway success that IoT is going to be over-run within weeks; and as such, we need to protect it. The next paragraph is that we need to be concerned about if the community feels so strongly about one or the other subDAOs that they might allocate all of their veHNT to just one of the subDAOs; and as such, we need to protect against it. This approach really bums me out. What enamors me about decentralized token-incentive projects is that they reward meritocracy. More effort, more work, and more success is rewarded with more tokens. This HIP really feels like an economic sellout. Guaranteed continued support for IOT, protected head start for every new subDAO, and a guarantee against not being loved by the community. Participation trophies for every subDAO.
I agree with much of your substance, but have a different point of view. First, IOT. I believe IOT has great potential. The IOT endgame has billions (billions and billions!) of sensors all over the world, sending, in total, lots of data at different rates. This is a scenario that simply isn’t possible with other existing technologies. It will take years to reach this potential, because the base technology is still in development. Without some form of subsidy, IOT risks being marginalized by networks like MOBILE in the next several years, because the use case for MOBILE already exists in spades. This was discussed leading up to HIP-51, and is a prime reason for the A factor in HIP-51, which is one way of expressing a “founder’s bonus” for IOT. . (edited)
03:27
HIP-80 just makes this subsidy explicit, and makes the numbers it is based on actually visible, rather than hidden in a formula that is difficult to understand. (What is a fourth root?) And it bumps the subsidy a bit higher, based on our current view of what the future may look like.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I agree with much of your substance, but have a different point of view. First, IOT. I believe IOT has great potential. The IOT endgame has billions (billions and billions!) of sensors all over the world, sending, in total, lots of data at different rates. This is a scenario that simply isn’t possible with other existing technologies. It will take years to reach this potential, because the base technology is still in development. Without some form of subsidy, IOT risks being marginalized by networks like MOBILE in the next several years, because the use case for MOBILE already exists in spades. This was discussed leading up to HIP-51, and is a prime reason for the A factor in HIP-51, which is one way of expressing a “founder’s bonus” for IOT. . (edited)
I propose we keep it in. As is. No need for changing it. 🙂 (edited)
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/13/2023 3:27 AM
theres only so many esims you can sell in the states. where as theres limitless potential for sensors
Avatar
Second, MOBILE. Or rather, all new subDAOs. We haven’t heard from WiFi Dabba much recently, but those guys are on fire. I would love to give them a chance in the Helium DAO. All pre-revenue subDAOs are given a head start by HIP-80. With three subDAOs including IOT, all pre-revenue, a new subDAO gets 13% of subDAO HNT emissions. So Dabba gets the same as MOBILE. Wanna pull ahead, MOBILE? Start moving data and burning HNT. If MOBILE burns $1M/month, that would drop Dabba (still pre-revenue) down to 3% of HNT per HIP-80. Sound good to me. Credit cards charge 3% in fees, and hold less moonshot potential. .
03:28
If MOBILE burns $10M/month, it drops Dabba down to 1.1%. And IOT down to 6.4%, but only for the four-year bonus period. After that, IOT is treated like Dabba is, if both are still pre-revenue.
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
theres only so many esims you can sell in the states. where as theres limitless potential for sensors
I am such a fan of the idea of situational awareness. Everyone wants more of it. There is arguably never enough. Sensors help provide the data to make situational awareness possible. Limitless potential for sensors indeed.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Second, MOBILE. Or rather, all new subDAOs. We haven’t heard from WiFi Dabba much recently, but those guys are on fire. I would love to give them a chance in the Helium DAO. All pre-revenue subDAOs are given a head start by HIP-80. With three subDAOs including IOT, all pre-revenue, a new subDAO gets 13% of subDAO HNT emissions. So Dabba gets the same as MOBILE. Wanna pull ahead, MOBILE? Start moving data and burning HNT. If MOBILE burns $1M/month, that would drop Dabba (still pre-revenue) down to 3% of HNT per HIP-80. Sound good to me. Credit cards charge 3% in fees, and hold less moonshot potential. .
I don't think you need HIP80 to do all that. None of these subDAOs need welfare.
Avatar
Can MOBILE, if it’s successful, afford to invest 7.5% of total HNT in the moonshots attempted by other networks? I’d hope so. If MOBILE is on fire, it’s a good business. I’d hope that would let us take on a bit of VC risk for projects that are uncertain, but have huge potential. If we can’t stomach a bit of risk, why are we in crypto in the first place? 😆
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I don't think you need HIP80 to do all that. None of these subDAOs need welfare.
That’s open to debate. A new potential subDAO could also do it on its own, like DIMO. If we want to invite them into the Helium DAO, we need to provide an attractive proposition. It’s like VC funding. Every startup with strong growth potential needs to choose between self-funding and VC funding. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of VC funding is that you get financial support pre-revenue. Nobody would give away part ownership to a VC without getting funding. It’s the same for new potential subDAOs. Of course that brings risk, but lets remember that Helium DAO can always kick out a subDAO that we don’t find useful, with a supermajority of veHNT votes. We just stop paying them HNT emissions. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
It is my wife's birthday today and I need to be up and ready to go "early" (early is 9:00 am for me!). So unfortunately I have to go. As much as I absolutely love discussing this stuff, I just can't today.
🎂 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
It is my wife's birthday today and I need to be up and ready to go "early" (early is 9:00 am for me!). So unfortunately I have to go. As much as I absolutely love discussing this stuff, I just can't today.
You started it. 😄 Thank you for your thoughtful contributions!
✅ 1
❤️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s open to debate. A new potential subDAO could also do it on its own, like DIMO. If we want to invite them into the Helium DAO, we need to provide an attractive proposition. It’s like VC funding. Every startup with strong growth potential needs to choose between self-funding and VC funding. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of VC funding is that you get financial support pre-revenue. Nobody would give away part ownership to a VC without getting funding. It’s the same for new potential subDAOs. Of course that brings risk, but lets remember that Helium DAO can always kick out a subDAO that we don’t find useful, with a supermajority of veHNT votes. We just stop paying them HNT emissions. (edited)
I will respond to this one though. I don't like the 'VC funding' metaphor in this regard. I don't think it behooves any organization to become a subDAO of ours. Making your own pizza in the crypto world is so fucking easy. If they want to east some pizza, that is the best way to do it. All of our subDAOs will be things we need to do on our own that need to operate under separate governance. Being an adopted child in this family has some benefits but one will need to accept that getting love from the family is going to be hard; so choose wisely if you want to join us. [yeah me, one more metaphor on my way out the door!].
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I will respond to this one though. I don't like the 'VC funding' metaphor in this regard. I don't think it behooves any organization to become a subDAO of ours. Making your own pizza in the crypto world is so fucking easy. If they want to east some pizza, that is the best way to do it. All of our subDAOs will be things we need to do on our own that need to operate under separate governance. Being an adopted child in this family has some benefits but one will need to accept that getting love from the family is going to be hard; so choose wisely if you want to join us. [yeah me, one more metaphor on my way out the door!].
Dabba is still proposing to become a Helium subDAO AFAIK. That’s one potential new subDAO right there. I’m dead sure they will look closely at all factors before making a decision.
Avatar
I will be back tomorrow night (pacific time zone). Wife and I going to check out the tulip farms up north.
🔥 1
🎂 2
Avatar
Unlike Boring, I would welcome Dabba under the conditions of HIP-80.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Unlike Boring, I would welcome Dabba under the conditions of HIP-80.
Thank you so much for publicly shitting on the Boring subDAO idea. I would have blindly accepted them as yet another member if it weren't for you back then.
🫡 1
03:42
and bye for realz.
Avatar
On another subject… There’s some controversy here about voting. That said, go vote! https://heliumvote.com/14rmHKjpZhsnrA2j24KiGzg8teA1zAMRhVGcWVUdmTAomTrJJQf . (edited)
03:54
Here’s how this vote works. There are three possible final outcomes: HIP-80 is adopted, HIP-81 is adopted, or neither is adopted, so we stay with HIP-51. They can’t both be adopted, because they have contradictory provisions. In the case that both win their individual votes, Foundation has decided, the one with more vote power is adopted, and the one with less is rejected. [...editing to simplify…] Except for a weird edge case, what groot posts below is correct: You want HIP80: vote yes on 80 and no on 81 You want HIP81: vote yes on 81 and no on 80 You want HIP51: vote no on both. (edited)
Avatar
I think you’re overcomplicating it for someone who thinks 4th roots are too difficult to understand. You want HIP81: vote yes on 81 and no on 80 You want HIP80: vote yes on 80 and no on 81 You want HIP51: vote no on both.
👌 1
04:05
I also think arbitrary floors are inherently more difficult to understand than a variable with meaning, but that’s a matter of opinion.
04:06
Great write up from KeithR. Apparently it is less pin-worthy than your own text… 🫠
Avatar
Original message was deleted or could not be loaded.
Comes across as arrogant and belittling, in my opinion.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Great write up from KeithR. Apparently it is less pin-worthy than your own text… 🫠
I’m still sifting through KeithR’s many posts. We were writing in parallel for much of the time.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I think you’re overcomplicating it for someone who thinks 4th roots are too difficult to understand. You want HIP81: vote yes on 81 and no on 80 You want HIP80: vote yes on 80 and no on 81 You want HIP51: vote no on both.
Thanks. I get carried away sometimes thinking around corners.
ferebee pinned a message to this channel. 04/13/2023 4:19 AM
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
If a subDAO should go, it should be done. No welfare. Add value to the project or be gone. If a subDAO is a blazing rocket to the moon, well then, we stand aside and let it eat a bunch of the pizza. [Let's see how many metaphors I can get in here 🙂 ]
@KeithR, all great posts, I agree with the spirit of basically everything said if not some of the details and language. "Welfare" for example is quite a loaded term. Couldn't you argue the "40 floor" is a actually a bonus/reward we're giving to IoT for being the founding subDAO that "worked hard" to enable everything else to come after it? That bonus is being paid out over the next few years in the form of the 40 floor factor. But as you said, maybe IoT is already too well rewarded, having mined 60%+ of the HNT. It's all a bit messy which is exactly how these questions of governance is I suppose.
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
@KeithR, all great posts, I agree with the spirit of basically everything said if not some of the details and language. "Welfare" for example is quite a loaded term. Couldn't you argue the "40 floor" is a actually a bonus/reward we're giving to IoT for being the founding subDAO that "worked hard" to enable everything else to come after it? That bonus is being paid out over the next few years in the form of the 40 floor factor. But as you said, maybe IoT is already too well rewarded, having mined 60%+ of the HNT. It's all a bit messy which is exactly how these questions of governance is I suppose.
Why do you need a floor when can use a formula that rewards based on something tangible instead?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 5:24 AM
Does anyone know what part Tushar consulted on?
Avatar
One nit I have with hip 80 is I would change that 40 floor to something even more explicit and simple and something that's applied evenly across subDAO's. For example a guaranteed minimum X% of HNT emissions that phases out over Y Months for every new subDAO (existing IoT and MOBILE subDAO's start date is whenever hip is implemented). And for fairness you could apply that for all subDAO's current and new. This would be be "incubation funding", so that new subDAO's coming into the network could have some guaranteed funding/value inflow to get them off the ground. It would have the benefit nearterm of protecting both MOBILE and IoT from being squashed near term by unanticipated outcomes of whatever formula we go with. I think of new subDAO's coming in less as a competitor company entering a market and more like a sports league chartering a new team/franchise. You could imagine the league would stipulate some incubation/seed funding to the new team for limited time for it to get up and running. [note: edited for clarification/spelling/grammar] (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
@KeithR, all great posts, I agree with the spirit of basically everything said if not some of the details and language. "Welfare" for example is quite a loaded term. Couldn't you argue the "40 floor" is a actually a bonus/reward we're giving to IoT for being the founding subDAO that "worked hard" to enable everything else to come after it? That bonus is being paid out over the next few years in the form of the 40 floor factor. But as you said, maybe IoT is already too well rewarded, having mined 60%+ of the HNT. It's all a bit messy which is exactly how these questions of governance is I suppose.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 5:28 AM
The A score did this really well. It based it on actual numbers
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
One nit I have with hip 80 is I would change that 40 floor to something even more explicit and simple and something that's applied evenly across subDAO's. For example a guaranteed minimum X% of HNT emissions that phases out over Y Months for every new subDAO (existing IoT and MOBILE subDAO's start date is whenever hip is implemented). And for fairness you could apply that for all subDAO's current and new. This would be be "incubation funding", so that new subDAO's coming into the network could have some guaranteed funding/value inflow to get them off the ground. It would have the benefit nearterm of protecting both MOBILE and IoT from being squashed near term by unanticipated outcomes of whatever formula we go with. I think of new subDAO's coming in less as a competitor company entering a market and more like a sports league chartering a new team/franchise. You could imagine the league would stipulate some incubation/seed funding to the new team for limited time for it to get up and running. [note: edited for clarification/spelling/grammar] (edited)
What unanticipated outcomes do you think these formulas have? The HIP81/51 formula was thought out over multiple months and specifically designed to work with these kind of differences between subDAOs.
05:35
The HIP80 formula was designed in a few weeks to fit a predetermined 'fair' split that was adjusted because some guy with some radios thought he deserved more HNT. (edited)
👆 6
05:39
You may think welfare has a negative connotation, but that is what HIP80 is. It rewards subDAOs for existing and in doing so creates a gaping hole in Helium DAO security that will be exploited sooner or later. Anyone that pretends that governance will stop it has learned nothing from previous rugs. By the time governance can step in it will be over already.
👆 6
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Here’s how this vote works. There are three possible final outcomes: HIP-80 is adopted, HIP-81 is adopted, or neither is adopted, so we stay with HIP-51. They can’t both be adopted, because they have contradictory provisions. In the case that both win their individual votes, Foundation has decided, the one with more vote power is adopted, and the one with less is rejected. [...editing to simplify…] Except for a weird edge case, what groot posts below is correct: You want HIP80: vote yes on 80 and no on 81 You want HIP81: vote yes on 81 and no on 80 You want HIP51: vote no on both. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 5:56 AM
This is not the correct messaging around the way voting is supposed to be conducted as laid out by the foundation. People will see your moderator tag and assume you can be trusted
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s open to debate. A new potential subDAO could also do it on its own, like DIMO. If we want to invite them into the Helium DAO, we need to provide an attractive proposition. It’s like VC funding. Every startup with strong growth potential needs to choose between self-funding and VC funding. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of VC funding is that you get financial support pre-revenue. Nobody would give away part ownership to a VC without getting funding. It’s the same for new potential subDAOs. Of course that brings risk, but lets remember that Helium DAO can always kick out a subDAO that we don’t find useful, with a supermajority of veHNT votes. We just stop paying them HNT emissions. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 5:59 AM
SubDAOs don’t get invited, they apply. Every single fly by night shit coin should apply if HIP-80 passes. Free HNT with no performance metrics.
06:00
Anyway, Ferebee, there seems to be a lot of confusion around this HIP. Can you comment on which part Tushar consulted on?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You may think welfare has a negative connotation, but that is what HIP80 is. It rewards subDAOs for existing and in doing so creates a gaping hole in Helium DAO security that will be exploited sooner or later. Anyone that pretends that governance will stop it has learned nothing from previous rugs. By the time governance can step in it will be over already.
“over” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. An adversarial subDAO can obtain, at best, all HNT emissions (except HST) for a limited time. As we have heard frequently, over 2/3 of all HNT has already been mined. This gives the Helium DAO ample opportunity to respond to an adversarial subDAO by kicking it out, i. e., stopping its HNT emissions.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
“over” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. An adversarial subDAO can obtain, at best, all HNT emissions (except HST) for a limited time. As we have heard frequently, over 2/3 of all HNT has already been mined. This gives the Helium DAO ample opportunity to respond to an adversarial subDAO by kicking it out, i. e., stopping its HNT emissions.
The rug will be over is what I meant and I think history has shown governance will be too late to stop it or do you deny that Deeper went on for too long as an example?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
SubDAOs don’t get invited, they apply. Every single fly by night shit coin should apply if HIP-80 passes. Free HNT with no performance metrics.
Sure, they apply. It’s like when the Jehova’s Witnesses ring my doorbell. I get to decide whether to invite them for dinner, or not. You seem to have a low opinion of the intelligence of Helium DAO members if you believe they will invite (accept the application of) worthless or adversarial subDAOs.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Sure, they apply. It’s like when the Jehova’s Witnesses ring my doorbell. I get to decide whether to invite them for dinner, or not. You seem to have a low opinion of the intelligence of Helium DAO members if you believe they will invite (accept the application of) worthless or adversarial subDAOs.
It's pretty ignorant to think you will be able to correctly determine that up front while history has shown it is hard if not impossible.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Sure, they apply. It’s like when the Jehova’s Witnesses ring my doorbell. I get to decide whether to invite them for dinner, or not. You seem to have a low opinion of the intelligence of Helium DAO members if you believe they will invite (accept the application of) worthless or adversarial subDAOs.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:07 AM
What’s the audit and due diligence process like?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The rug will be over is what I meant and I think history has shown governance will be too late to stop it or do you deny that Deeper went on for too long as an example?
“rug” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. HNT holders will not be rugged. They might, at worst, have given some HNT out to a subDAO that does not increase HNT’s value. Let’s not overdramatize.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:07 AM
Really good marketing scams people in crypto all the time
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
“rug” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. HNT holders will not be rugged. They might, at worst, have given some HNT out to a subDAO that does not increase HNT’s value. Let’s not overdramatize.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:08 AM
Dumping immediately tokens on the market rugs the project
06:08
We’ve seen that play out before
06:09
Gamers never hold tokens, they dump driving down price and confidence in HNT.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
“rug” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. HNT holders will not be rugged. They might, at worst, have given some HNT out to a subDAO that does not increase HNT’s value. Let’s not overdramatize.
What you're doing is downplaying a significant flaw, I don't see why you expect nuance from your sparring partner when you don't use any yourself 🤷
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What’s the audit and due diligence process like?
The way it works is, you suggest a new subDAO. (You posted previously that you were working with multiple TIPIN projects who might or might not apply to become a Helium subDAO.) Or somebody else proposes a new subDAO. Somebody writes the HIP that would make the new project a Helium subDAO. We debate the HIP vigorously. We’ve seen how that works once already. A HIP draft was posted that would have made Boring a subDAO. We debated it vigorously. The authors withdrew the HIP.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:10 AM
If this wasn’t a really issue we’d have no deny list. We’re creating a system where you can come in and syphon off way more HNT than any of manufacturer running gaming rings could with a lower barrier of entry and faster pay back period.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The way it works is, you suggest a new subDAO. (You posted previously that you were working with multiple TIPIN projects who might or might not apply to become a Helium subDAO.) Or somebody else proposes a new subDAO. Somebody writes the HIP that would make the new project a Helium subDAO. We debate the HIP vigorously. We’ve seen how that works once already. A HIP draft was posted that would have made Boring a subDAO. We debated it vigorously. The authors withdrew the HIP.
I really don't see how you can with a clear conscience pretend that you will able to spot it up front.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:12 AM
Boring didn’t know they could just tell people Tushar was an advisor then rush to vote
06:13
Imagine a scenario where one of these weather station companies tries to join as a subDAO, then after a month starts to pressure the community and say okay, we can’t debate this for an extended period of time, either we have a vote or we’re going to make our own token elsewhere what do you think happens?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Anyway, Ferebee, there seems to be a lot of confusion around this HIP. Can you comment on which part Tushar consulted on?
I don’t know why you keep going on about Tushar. One thing we asked Tushar about is what the max(1, x) functions in HIP-51 were intended for. He explained that, and it turned out I had made an incorrect assumption. As a result, I removed an assertion I had put in HIP-80 on the subject. I responded to your Twitter post. https://twitter.com/chrisferebee/status/1646497953639546880?s=20 (edited)
As the primary author of HIP-80, I can state with authority that Tushar is not a coauthor. OTOH, he provided valuable background, some of which led me to remove an incorrect assertion about the intent of HIP-51 in PR #611 on HIP-80.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:15 AM
You should ask your co author why he keeps telling people Tushar consulted on the HIP
Avatar
lol, valuable background being the same thing everyone in the room told you but you didn't want to believe
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:16 AM
Who tagged Tushar to get him to come in and clear it up?
06:17
You say “we asked Tushar.” I asked him
06:18
Can you comment on your feelings about one of your co-authors misrepresenting facts to the community to garner votes?
06:19
Was that also a result of a “heated exchange on social media”
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Who tagged Tushar to get him to come in and clear it up?
Well, I was wrong, so I corrected it. Are we going to argue here whether I am a bad person because I held an incorrect opinion for longer than might have been necessary? I’ll gladly apologize right here to anybody who may have been misled by my incorrect opinion during the time I held it. Now would you mind not saying “Tushar” more often than actually contributes to the topic of this channel, which is what effects HIP-80 will have on Helium tokenomics?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:20 AM
You are talking about the wrong part. Your co-author is intentionally muddying the waters with misinformation. Is that how you want to get your HIP to pass? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Can you comment on your feelings about one of your co-authors misrepresenting facts to the community to garner votes?
As far as I an tell, that’s not even on Discord. HIP-80 has multiple coauthors, whom I added as such to express my appreciation for their contributions to the development of the HIP. That’s unrelated to what may go on in other discussion forums. I think participants there can discuss whatever they like. It’s also unrelated to what kind of tea I like to drink, for example. If you would like me to say something in particular to @gateholder, just ask directly. Otherwise, I think the two of you are adults who can say whatever you like. Hiere, subject to the rules of this Discord.
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
One nit I have with hip 80 is I would change that 40 floor to something even more explicit and simple and something that's applied evenly across subDAO's. For example a guaranteed minimum X% of HNT emissions that phases out over Y Months for every new subDAO (existing IoT and MOBILE subDAO's start date is whenever hip is implemented). And for fairness you could apply that for all subDAO's current and new. This would be be "incubation funding", so that new subDAO's coming into the network could have some guaranteed funding/value inflow to get them off the ground. It would have the benefit nearterm of protecting both MOBILE and IoT from being squashed near term by unanticipated outcomes of whatever formula we go with. I think of new subDAO's coming in less as a competitor company entering a market and more like a sports league chartering a new team/franchise. You could imagine the league would stipulate some incubation/seed funding to the new team for limited time for it to get up and running. [note: edited for clarification/spelling/grammar] (edited)
That was actually my original purposal to have a reserve for each
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
As far as I an tell, that’s not even on Discord. HIP-80 has multiple coauthors, whom I added as such to express my appreciation for their contributions to the development of the HIP. That’s unrelated to what may go on in other discussion forums. I think participants there can discuss whatever they like. It’s also unrelated to what kind of tea I like to drink, for example. If you would like me to say something in particular to @gateholder, just ask directly. Otherwise, I think the two of you are adults who can say whatever you like. Hiere, subject to the rules of this Discord.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 6:27 AM
So, yes. You are fine with the community being lied to by authors of this HIP. Thank you for clearing up your position. (edited)
06:28
Please pin^
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, I was wrong, so I corrected it. Are we going to argue here whether I am a bad person because I held an incorrect opinion for longer than might have been necessary? I’ll gladly apologize right here to anybody who may have been misled by my incorrect opinion during the time I held it. Now would you mind not saying “Tushar” more often than actually contributes to the topic of this channel, which is what effects HIP-80 will have on Helium tokenomics?
You gaslighted everyone trying to convince them of some alternate reality while the reality was you got it wrong all along. As if we weren't there for HIP51 or something 🤷 (edited)
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/13/2023 6:47 AM
Guys can we please focus on the hips?
👆 7
💯 5
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
If a subDAO should go, it should be done. No welfare. Add value to the project or be gone. If a subDAO is a blazing rocket to the moon, well then, we stand aside and let it eat a bunch of the pizza. [Let's see how many metaphors I can get in here 🙂 ]
One thing to consider is the net effect of letting the IOT side of things wane, specifically in regards to socials and Helium’s brand. Many of us are here because we heard about Helium in one form or another through some sort of social channel, many during the last bull run. I’m not sure if you’ve done a temp check outside of our little bubble but Helium doesn’t have the best reputation out there right now and most of them are people who are spurned by lower than expected earnings via their hotspot purchases. Granted most are uninformed or malinformed but regardless, the spread of anti Helium sentiment was easy as the medium of weary hotspot owners/general crypto haters was an easy one to spread through. IoT needs a fighting chance as there is a real and substantial market, just not a mature one yet. If we further smash IoT earnings then there is a net effect on potential Helium Mobile customers and then potential neutral host partners. Further claims of “Helium is a scam!” Will drown out potential switchers. We’re just not established enough to overcome the Twitter/Reddit mobs. (edited)
👍 1
08:04
I’m not advocating for welfare, or even 80s approach. Just noting potential ramifications for letting IoT continue to wane
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
triM
I’m not advocating for welfare, or even 80s approach. Just noting potential ramifications for letting IoT continue to wane
All of these are factors that were carefully weighed and we built for it both to be merit based and future growth which will ultimately lead to success for both IOT and MOBILE
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Regardless of my opinion or your opinion of HIP81 or the off-channel actions of one of its proponents, I do not think we should be passing HIP80.
And this is why we vote. I think HIP 80 is superior to 81. But, the community will decide. In some respects, . . . there is safety in a multitude of counsel.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
All of these are factors that were carefully weighed and we built for it both to be merit based and future growth which will ultimately lead to success for both IOT and MOBILE
Understood. That’s outside of my knowledge base. Just trying to expand on one area of our ecosystem that I can focus on and have put efforts into, and that’s the people side of things. A laissez-faire approach and letting IoT drop off a cliff at this time would absolutely be devastating for us sentiment wise. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
And this is why we vote. I think HIP 80 is superior to 81. But, the community will decide. In some respects, . . . there is safety in a multitude of counsel.
I agree, the reality any change will dramatically change the effect of the score
Avatar
Avatar
triM
One thing to consider is the net effect of letting the IOT side of things wane, specifically in regards to socials and Helium’s brand. Many of us are here because we heard about Helium in one form or another through some sort of social channel, many during the last bull run. I’m not sure if you’ve done a temp check outside of our little bubble but Helium doesn’t have the best reputation out there right now and most of them are people who are spurned by lower than expected earnings via their hotspot purchases. Granted most are uninformed or malinformed but regardless, the spread of anti Helium sentiment was easy as the medium of weary hotspot owners/general crypto haters was an easy one to spread through. IoT needs a fighting chance as there is a real and substantial market, just not a mature one yet. If we further smash IoT earnings then there is a net effect on potential Helium Mobile customers and then potential neutral host partners. Further claims of “Helium is a scam!” Will drown out potential switchers. We’re just not established enough to overcome the Twitter/Reddit mobs. (edited)
Interesting point. Related, potential users of the network will undoubtedly weigh the chances of the IOT network remaining healthy for a reasonable length of time, and HIP-80 provides a predictable basis for that. Meanwhile, the founder’s bonus of HIP-80 (which credits a minimum of $48,000/month of revenue to IOT) is easily superseded within the budget of just a few large-scale deployments, which can then secure the health of IOT for the long-term, after the 4-year subsidy period expires.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Understood. That’s outside of my knowledge base. Just trying to expand on one area of our ecosystem that I can focus on and have put efforts into, and that’s the people side of things. A laissez-faire approach and letting IoT drop off a cliff at this time would absolutely be devastating for us sentiment wise. (edited)
Right it would slowly decay in the current model and right now mobile is the better growth option and will see better yields if cultivated. (edited)
08:14
But this will give iot a better chance coming to full fruition
Avatar
BTW it briefly occurred to me that we should try to get #HIP80 trending on Twitter. Unfortunately, that seems to be mostly related to hip surgery. 😆
😂 3
👨‍🦳 1
🧓 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
BTW it briefly occurred to me that we should try to get #HIP80 trending on Twitter. Unfortunately, that seems to be mostly related to hip surgery. 😆
Ya don't break a hip !
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Interesting point. Related, potential users of the network will undoubtedly weigh the chances of the IOT network remaining healthy for a reasonable length of time, and HIP-80 provides a predictable basis for that. Meanwhile, the founder’s bonus of HIP-80 (which credits a minimum of $48,000/month of revenue to IOT) is easily superseded within the budget of just a few large-scale deployments, which can then secure the health of IOT for the long-term, after the 4-year subsidy period expires.
people and business should be able to look at that and say I know this will be here, spurring it further, I really have a hard time seeing a truly bad scenario using hip 80 but in the current climate if the maths of hip51 go wonky it could be a disaster (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
people and business should be able to look at that and say I know this will be here, spurring it further, I really have a hard time seeing a truly bad scenario using hip 80 but in the current climate if the maths of hip51 go wonky it could be a disaster (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 8:24 AM
Because you are looking it at it through the lens of 2 subDAOs
08:26
51 was done in a way to allow a relatively frictionless way for Helium to scale to multiple protocols
08:27
51 was written by noted HIP-80 contributor, Tushar Jain.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Because you are looking it at it through the lens of 2 subDAOs
This ultimately solves the 3rd, 4th etc by giving it a basis for UBI. Which I view as necessary to attract outside projects, albeit small ones but thats what venture cap wants to do its a good system.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 8:28 AM
What do you mean venture cap wants to do it? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
people and business should be able to look at that and say I know this will be here, spurring it further, I really have a hard time seeing a truly bad scenario using hip 80 but in the current climate if the maths of hip51 go wonky it could be a disaster (edited)
This to me is the biggest risk with the current hip 51 default, that linear veHNT factor has not been thought through in terms of it's potential downside effects.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What do you mean venture cap wants to do it? (edited)
That we are using a part of emissions to fund unproven or under capitalized ideas but this will all be voted on
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 8:35 AM
But what do you mean by venture cap?
08:37
There seems to miscommunication when you say things so I’m just asking for you to clarify what you are saying
08:42
Am I correct in understanding the VCs want this change? Can you expand on that? Which VCs?
Avatar
https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1093948548992749598 why did she go to the vote, if she was going to vote why did you do this poll?
08:47
look like ice
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
This ultimately solves the 3rd, 4th etc by giving it a basis for UBI. Which I view as necessary to attract outside projects, albeit small ones but thats what venture cap wants to do its a good system.
I'm still voting in favor of HIP 80, but whether it fails or passes I'd be very keen on a follow-on hip that provides a "temporary incubation floor % of emissions" (replaces that floor 40 factor for IoT if hip 80 passes). Something like the following (note all numbers used here totally negotiable, trying to illustrate formula and concept). All new subDAO’s get a temporary “incubation period” floor percent of emissions. This floor applies even if DAO utility score says it should get a lower percent. The initial floor percent for a new subDAO is determined per following formula: • (Initial Floor %) = (1/N_subDAO) x (1/5) x (100%). Applies for first 2 years past join date • Initial Floor % scales linearly down to 0% between 2 and 4 years past join date • Existing subDAO’s “join-date” will be considered the date of this HIP’s implementation: • Note: N_subDAO = number of subDAO’s including the joining subDAO
08:55
Translation: • Mobile gets minimum 10% of emission for 2 yrs, linearly scales to 0% years 2-4 • IoT gets minimum 10% of emission for 2 yrs, linearly scales to 0% years 2-4 • SubDAO #3 gets minimum ~6.67% of emission for 2 yrs, linearly scales to 0% years 2-4 • SubDAO #4 gets minimum ~5% of emission for 2 yrs, linearly scales to 0% years 2-4 • SubDAO #5 gets minimum ~4% of emission for 2 yrs, linearly scales to 0% years 2-4
08:59
You can see even with 5 subDAO's that still leaves ~64% of emissions that get competed for via the utility score, plenty of reward for subDAOs that are being awesome and transferring tons of useful data. And new subDAO's get some certainty that they'll be getting some minimum value injected early on as they build up their infrastructure.
09:01
And it provides some guard rails to protect both Mobile and IoT from unintended wonkiness with whatever utility score ends up being
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:02 AM
Have the authors of this HIP all disclosed how much money they stand to save by absolving themselves of their onboarding fees? How is this any different from an author adding a provision in a HIP granting themselves HNT?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
This ultimately solves the 3rd, 4th etc by giving it a basis for UBI. Which I view as necessary to attract outside projects, albeit small ones but thats what venture cap wants to do its a good system.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:04 AM
Can we get back to this point here. You are making it sound like there are VC funds that are backing this idea. Can you be more specific about that?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Have the authors of this HIP all disclosed how much money they stand to save by absolving themselves of their onboarding fees? How is this any different from an author adding a provision in a HIP granting themselves HNT?
So radio owners are paying on boarding?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:05 AM
It’s currently unsettled but a potential liability for radio owners
09:05
Can you ever just answer a question?
Avatar
He said venture cap as in a general concept. Max you don’t actually have to pick apart every single thing everyone says.
👆 1
👎 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:09 AM
Just one person
👍 1
Avatar
No, it’s your general style in each channel.
👆 1
👎 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:10 AM
Only when people continue to bullshit the community
👆 1
09:12
Statements like that present the HIP in another light. As if there are some smarter people who agree with this. It’s a very common problem in crypto where people attempt to make things seem more legitimate by saying people with money like it.
❔ 1
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
I'm still voting in favor of HIP 80, but whether it fails or passes I'd be very keen on a follow-on hip that provides a "temporary incubation floor % of emissions" (replaces that floor 40 factor for IoT if hip 80 passes). Something like the following (note all numbers used here totally negotiable, trying to illustrate formula and concept). All new subDAO’s get a temporary “incubation period” floor percent of emissions. This floor applies even if DAO utility score says it should get a lower percent. The initial floor percent for a new subDAO is determined per following formula: • (Initial Floor %) = (1/N_subDAO) x (1/5) x (100%). Applies for first 2 years past join date • Initial Floor % scales linearly down to 0% between 2 and 4 years past join date • Existing subDAO’s “join-date” will be considered the date of this HIP’s implementation: • Note: N_subDAO = number of subDAO’s including the joining subDAO
This is actually what the Floor of 7 does, which will apply to MOBILE initially, but also to any future subDAO. Unlike the Floor of 40 for IOT, which goes away after 4 years, the 7 is permanent. IOT will drop to 7 then if it still has no meaningful revenue. (Another way to state the “7” is that all subDAOs are treated as if they are generating at least $1,470/month, even if they do less.) With IOT and MOBILE both pre-revenue, MOBILE gets about 15% of HNT emissions. If we bring on a third subDAO, such as Dabba, MOBILE and Dabba will both get about 13% of emissions as long as nobody has any revenue. IOT will still get 74% If MOBILE takes off, and starts burning $1M/month, and IOT and Dabba still have no revenue, the picture changes. Then MOBILE would get 79.5% of the emissions, IOT would still get 17.5% of the emissions (founder’s bonus still in effect), and Dabba would get 3% of the emissions. Once the founder’s bonus for IOT goes away, IOT and Dabba would both get about 3%. Your scheme is different, but both have similar goals. The percentage of HNT that goes to pre-revenue subDAOs automatically shrinks under HIP-80 as the revenue of successful subDAOs grow. I think that much is relatively uncontroversial. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:14 AM
You must be noticing the guy never answers a question to clarify anything he says
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You must be noticing the guy never answers a question to clarify anything he says
Right but I’m addressing you at the moment. You have a tendency to leap on a single item or idea in someone’s post and derail conversation. Things tend to spiral as have the channels for 80/81 continuously for the last several weeks. Hell, 81 is an expression of that behavior. Rather than just vote no on 80, a whole new competing HIP was created and the current climate is, well it kind of sucks.
10k 1
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Right but I’m addressing you at the moment. You have a tendency to leap on a single item or idea in someone’s post and derail conversation. Things tend to spiral as have the channels for 80/81 continuously for the last several weeks. Hell, 81 is an expression of that behavior. Rather than just vote no on 80, a whole new competing HIP was created and the current climate is, well it kind of sucks.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:19 AM
I was told to write a HIP by the foundation if I didn’t like 80. I did. There was a vote, HIP80 failed that vote, enter 81 as a HIP. There was no communication that the HIPs would be ‘competing’ until a few hours before the vote
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Right but I’m addressing you at the moment. You have a tendency to leap on a single item or idea in someone’s post and derail conversation. Things tend to spiral as have the channels for 80/81 continuously for the last several weeks. Hell, 81 is an expression of that behavior. Rather than just vote no on 80, a whole new competing HIP was created and the current climate is, well it kind of sucks.
It was kind of what the HIP80 authors steered towards: “I think you’re wrong so go write your own HIP”. So I don’t think it’s fair to now use that as some sort of ‘wrong’
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Have the authors of this HIP all disclosed how much money they stand to save by absolving themselves of their onboarding fees? How is this any different from an author adding a provision in a HIP granting themselves HNT?
Not sure if this is intended for me, but I do have a double-digit number of CONTROLLINO LoRa Hotspots that aren’t onboarded yet. (CONTROLLINO has been rugged by its rather unsavory founder as far as funding the maker wallet is concerned) So if HIP-80 passes and IOT decides to drop onboarding fees to $5 as a result, I will actually save $1,000+ in IOT onboarding fees. Good point! Though that wasn’t top of mind while I was working on this.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Not sure if this is intended for me, but I do have a double-digit number of CONTROLLINO LoRa Hotspots that aren’t onboarded yet. (CONTROLLINO has been rugged by its rather unsavory founder as far as funding the maker wallet is concerned) So if HIP-80 passes and IOT decides to drop onboarding fees to $5 as a result, I will actually save $1,000+ in IOT onboarding fees. Good point! Though that wasn’t top of mind while I was working on this.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:22 AM
It is not
Avatar
Full disclosure and all that.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
This is actually what the Floor of 7 does, which will apply to MOBILE initially, but also to any future subDAO. Unlike the Floor of 40 for IOT, which goes away after 4 years, the 7 is permanent. IOT will drop to 7 then if it still has no meaningful revenue. (Another way to state the “7” is that all subDAOs are treated as if they are generating at least $1,470/month, even if they do less.) With IOT and MOBILE both pre-revenue, MOBILE gets about 15% of HNT emissions. If we bring on a third subDAO, such as Dabba, MOBILE and Dabba will both get about 13% of emissions as long as nobody has any revenue. IOT will still get 74% If MOBILE takes off, and starts burning $1M/month, and IOT and Dabba still have no revenue, the picture changes. Then MOBILE would get 79.5% of the emissions, IOT would still get 17.5% of the emissions (founder’s bonus still in effect), and Dabba would get 3% of the emissions. Once the founder’s bonus for IOT goes away, IOT and Dabba would both get about 3%. Your scheme is different, but both have similar goals. The percentage of HNT that goes to pre-revenue subDAOs automatically shrinks under HIP-80 as the revenue of successful subDAOs grow. I think that much is relatively uncontroversial. (edited)
Ok that makes me feel better about it. This math is with the HIP80 Utility Score approach I'm assuming? (i.e. veHNT is sqrt'd). I think my way is a bit more simple for the laymen to understand and therefore get behind with a yes vote, but it sounds like both approaches trying to accomplish roughly the same goals, which is why I'm fine with passing 80 for now. If it doesn't pass, I would suggest considering a more explicit approach as I outlined.
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:22 AM
Thank you for disclosing though
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It was kind of what the HIP80 authors steered towards: “I think you’re wrong so go write your own HIP”. So I don’t think it’s fair to now use that as some sort of ‘wrong’
I also think that with the current poll you can’t say it was the wrong thing to do, apparently the HIP80 isn’t fully supported. If consensus can’t be achieved with the HIP authors I don’t think an alternative HIP is something to hate on. It has always been the guidance: “don’t like it, propose something else” (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I was told to write a HIP by the foundation if I didn’t like 80. I did. There was a vote, HIP80 failed that vote, enter 81 as a HIP. There was no communication that the HIPs would be ‘competing’ until a few hours before the vote
Right and maybe they’re to share the blame with how the current climate is at the moment but in a personal level, it’s something I’ve noticed and feel compelled to comment on.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I also think that with the current poll you can’t say it was the wrong thing to do, apparently the HIP80 isn’t fully supported. If consensus can’t be achieved with the HIP authors I don’t think an alternative HIP is something to hate on. It has always been the guidance: “don’t like it, propose something else” (edited)
Indeed and that should be commended actually. I’m specifically referring to Max’s tendency to attack everything he doesn’t agree with. I do believe he acts in good faith. But it is incendiary.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:26 AM
I won’t apologize for hunting down and pointing out gaming vectors and potentially false statements. People made similar comments when I started whistle blowing Pollen in November. We all saw how that worked out.
💯 3
09:27
We’re not here to make friends. We operate in a trustless system outside of the regulated financial system. If we can’t self regulate none of this is ever going to work
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Indeed and that should be commended actually. I’m specifically referring to Max’s tendency to attack everything he doesn’t agree with. I do believe he acts in good faith. But it is incendiary.
In this particular case the issue lies mostly with other parties so I suggest you target your anger there.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We’re not here to make friends. We operate in a trustless system outside of the regulated financial system. If we can’t self regulate none of this is ever going to work
Agreed. But part of self regulating is maintaining some semblance of community. It's one of the things Helium does have going for it.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
In this particular case the issue lies mostly with other parties so I suggest you target your anger there.
I'm not angry. I can't attribute Max's behavior to people other than Max.
Avatar
Avatar
triM
Agreed. But part of self regulating is maintaining some semblance of community. It's one of the things Helium does have going for it.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:29 AM
Agreed, which is why I’ve been so vocal about this trend of working in private all of a sudden. We both want the same result here
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Am I correct in understanding the VCs want this change? Can you expand on that? Which VCs?
I think it was meant in a totally different way: not "VCs want some kind of changes" but more like: giving new subDAOs (that may fail) some start-up funding has some similarity to the VC business approach: VCs want startups that can be funded, even if it is not 100% sure that they succed. Just presenting a different way of interpreting. (edited)
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Agreed, which is why I’ve been so vocal about this trend of working in private all of a sudden. We both want the same result here
Interesting thought. You might be onto something.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I think it was meant in a totally different way: not "VCs want some kind of changes" but more like: giving new subDAOs (that may fail) some start-up funding has some similarity to the VC business approach: VCs want startups that can be funded, even if it is not 100% sure that they succed. Just presenting a different way of interpreting. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:31 AM
It was a weird and ambiguous statement and rather than getting the wrong impression, I was asking for clarification
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It was a weird and ambiguous statement and rather than getting the wrong impression, I was asking for clarification
Just trying to help here by presenting a possible interpretation.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:35 AM
If only the guy who said it was here and could clear that up
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I think it was meant in a totally different way: not "VCs want some kind of changes" but more like: giving new subDAOs (that may fail) some start-up funding has some similarity to the VC business approach: VCs want startups that can be funded, even if it is not 100% sure that they succed. Just presenting a different way of interpreting. (edited)
I think the fact we all have to guess makes the request for clarification not a strange one
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 9:45 AM
He’s off throwing out other numbers other places. I’m sure he’ll return when the discussion dies down
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 9:50 AM
If this HIP doesn't pass, is there a HUGE concern or danger to the few weeks that could pass until a revised HIP is proposed? Like, is there a worst case scenario of what could happen? (edited)
Avatar
I made a similar analogy about VC funding earlier in the discussion with @KeithR https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1096019712237899826 Our disagreement there was that Keith, if I understand his point correctly, thinks that even with the subsidy provided by HIP-80, it’s unlikely that independent projects would want to join the Helium DAO. I think the VC analogy is pretty straightforward.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 9:56 AM
Though if we can revise and suggest a revised or new HIP, then that long-term danger could be mitigated pretty quickly.... (if I'm correct in reading your response as the answer to my question)
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Though if we can revise and suggest a revised or new HIP, then that long-term danger could be mitigated pretty quickly.... (if I'm correct in reading your response as the answer to my question)
Oh, sorry. No, not responding to you. I was responding to the queries by Max and groot above about the meaning of venture capital in previous comments by gateholder…
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I made a similar analogy about VC funding earlier in the discussion with @KeithR https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1096019712237899826 Our disagreement there was that Keith, if I understand his point correctly, thinks that even with the subsidy provided by HIP-80, it’s unlikely that independent projects would want to join the Helium DAO. I think the VC analogy is pretty straightforward.
It is indeed straightforward. 🙂 I don't think we should follow a VC approach as the Helium DAO does not need to be chasing profit. Let them come to us with their own bootstraps. [turns out the tulips are still not blooming yet; they are two weeks late]
🙁 1
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
If this HIP doesn't pass, is there a HUGE concern or danger to the few weeks that could pass until a revised HIP is proposed? Like, is there a worst case scenario of what could happen? (edited)
hashc0de has stated that if neither HIP-80 nor HIP-81 pass, Foundation is fully prepared to launch with HIP-51 parameters. As I understand it, this would mean that MOBILE would have a low A factor initially due to the missing onboarding fees, which haven’t been paid by MOBILE Hotspots yet.
10:01
So perhaps a new HIP would be proposed that solves the issue in a different way. For example, a method could be implemented whereby Hotspot owners could backpay their fees individually, which are already owed per HIP-53, but just haven’t been assessed yet. Of course this raises the question of who would pay, and who wouldn’t. But I’m sure there are plenty of suggestions that could be made.
👍 1
10:02
It would probably be more elegant to go with either HIP-80 or HIP-81, for this issue.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So perhaps a new HIP would be proposed that solves the issue in a different way. For example, a method could be implemented whereby Hotspot owners could backpay their fees individually, which are already owed per HIP-53, but just haven’t been assessed yet. Of course this raises the question of who would pay, and who wouldn’t. But I’m sure there are plenty of suggestions that could be made.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 10:09 AM
That’s basically what 81 does, giving mobile subDAO a line in the same date to do that or face consequences
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
hashc0de has stated that if neither HIP-80 nor HIP-81 pass, Foundation is fully prepared to launch with HIP-51 parameters. As I understand it, this would mean that MOBILE would have a low A factor initially due to the missing onboarding fees, which haven’t been paid by MOBILE Hotspots yet.
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:17 AM
If there are delayed onboardings for a few weeks, I don't think that would dramatically affect things? Assuming there's another try at a HIP.
10:17
Am I thinking correctly here?
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
If there are delayed onboardings for a few weeks, I don't think that would dramatically affect things? Assuming there's another try at a HIP.
currently MOBILE gets 0 HNT, then they will get some non-zero amount of HNT (under HIP51). I don't think it will affect things too much but they will want to onboard those hotspots quickly to get that DAO Utility Score up somewhat.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
currently MOBILE gets 0 HNT, then they will get some non-zero amount of HNT (under HIP51). I don't think it will affect things too much but they will want to onboard those hotspots quickly to get that DAO Utility Score up somewhat.
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:34 AM
no existing hotspots will have to be re-onboarded, correct?
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
If there are delayed onboardings for a few weeks, I don't think that would dramatically affect things? Assuming there's another try at a HIP.
Emissions will have to follow HIP-51 if nothing else has been passed. We’ve seen here that this sharing of HNT between the subDAOs is a very divisive issue. What if IOT is getting lots of HNT, and MOBILE is getting very little? Will a 66.67% majority be found that agrees to a new HIP that takes HNT away from MOBILE and gives it to IOT? That’s what both HIP-80 and HIP-81 do now, effectively. (HIP-80 explicitly, and HIP-81 by deferring payment of the MOBILE onboarding fees until 1 August if needed.) HIP-80 offers potentially stronger long-term support to IOT as an incentive for the IOT side to agree to share emissions with MOBILE in the short and perhaps medium term despite the missing onboarding fees. I’ll let the HIP-81 team speak what incentive HIP-81 gives to IOT in return for a short-term concession to defer the payment of the missing fees. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
no existing hotspots will have to be re-onboarded, correct?
they will have to be onboarded to the MOBILE subDAO because they're currently not afaik.
10:35
HIP-80 offers stronger long-term support to IOT as an incentive for the IOT side to agree to share emissions with MOBILE in the short and perhaps medium term despite the missing onboarding fees.
This is debatable and fully dependent on how much hotspots MOBILE will onboard.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
So radio owners are paying on boarding?
if hip81 passes, someone would have to pay, and it would likely be the radio owners. I'm ready to pay my share. hip80 forgives all onboarded radios for missing onboarding fees and calls into question if that's your motivation behind hip80 as a large deployer.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
they will have to be onboarded to the MOBILE subDAO because they're currently not afaik.
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:36 AM
This is confusing to me. I have a MOBILE hotspot. I've mined MOBILE. I don't know how/why I have to onboard it to the mobile subdao... and then add to it that there are no subdaos...it's all Helium. This is one of the key aspects where I just find myself totally lost.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
no existing hotspots will have to be re-onboarded, correct?
That’s really an implementation issue. As the MOBILE Hotspots have already onboarded to IOT with their private key, it’s more of a bookkeeping decision whether they are considered onboarded to MOBILE as well. HIP-80 forgives the onboarding fee, HIP-81 defers it. In both cases I presume the implementation would just adjust the books.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s really an implementation issue. As the MOBILE Hotspots have already onboarded to IOT with their private key, it’s more of a bookkeeping decision whether they are considered onboarded to MOBILE as well. HIP-80 forgives the onboarding fee, HIP-81 defers it. In both cases I presume the implementation would just adjust the books.
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:37 AM
Ahhhhh, this clears it up better for me.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
This is confusing to me. I have a MOBILE hotspot. I've mined MOBILE. I don't know how/why I have to onboard it to the mobile subdao... and then add to it that there are no subdaos...it's all Helium. This is one of the key aspects where I just find myself totally lost.
Maybe it helps if you consider, what if we join Dabba, and suddenly your Hotspot can operate as a Dabba Wi-Fi node, with a software upgrade and external Wi-Fi hardware? Then it would need to be “onboarded” to Dabba too.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
This is confusing to me. I have a MOBILE hotspot. I've mined MOBILE. I don't know how/why I have to onboard it to the mobile subdao... and then add to it that there are no subdaos...it's all Helium. This is one of the key aspects where I just find myself totally lost.
You haven't onboarded to the MOBILE subDAO because there isn't one, or so I have been told, repeatedly. Current L1 didn't support double onboarding but Solana does and it will need to happen.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:40 AM
Gotcha... so in a multi-geared flywheel of Helium, this is the cost of adding my hotspot to a specifically designed gear.
10:41
And participating in the microeconomics of that ecosystem
Avatar
Yes. HIP81 specifies that you don't have to onboard to all technologies your hardware is capable of but currently onboarded hotspots will all be assumed to have onboarded to IOT. In the future this may be of interest though, that you get the option to only onboard onto those technologies that you want.
Avatar
Avatar
Dopeman
if hip81 passes, someone would have to pay, and it would likely be the radio owners. I'm ready to pay my share. hip80 forgives all onboarded radios for missing onboarding fees and calls into question if that's your motivation behind hip80 as a large deployer.
Yes I was willing to pay my share to but I'd rather spend that money to get more equipment, and also its worth noting if we go down this path that another radio onboarding fee will be proposed likely in the 10% of msrp to truly get the flywheel moving. Thus extracting about $1m from mobile but IMO this is tentamont to putting a plow on an anemic horse and that will likely hurt mobiles future
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Yes I was willing to pay my share to but I'd rather spend that money to get more equipment, and also its worth noting if we go down this path that another radio onboarding fee will be proposed likely in the 10% of msrp to truly get the flywheel moving. Thus extracting about $1m from mobile but IMO this is tentamont to putting a plow on an anemic horse and that will likely hurt mobiles future
What the MOBILE subDAO does has little to do with what voting for 80 or 81 does..
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:51 AM
The urgency part is what gets me. It seems it's a nice to have this in place at time of migration... however not clear on the long-term benefits. It's a best guess.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
The urgency part is what gets me. It seems it's a nice to have this in place at time of migration... however not clear on the long-term benefits. It's a best guess.
It was pushed through as if required but at the end of the day it turned out to be more of a nice to have.
👍 1
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:54 AM
So fwiw, I'm at a NO for both right now. I think there's merit in a collaborative solution.
Avatar
I'd rather get if of the ground and show a good growth trajectory
Avatar
"rather have" is analogous to a nice to have.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:57 AM
I think there's appreciative nuance to the distinction.
10:58
The assumptions have been that there are reckless moves being made, and it seems long the long-tail has more than enough room for course correction.
Avatar
nice to have usually means we want this but it isn't required for proper function, and we know it isn't required for proper function.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 10:59 AM
But I think showing the growth trajectory is important... and what it might look like if it goes off track...and what are the ways going off track could manifest. (edited)
11:01
I'm still hearing there's no immediate danger to either idea, nor to staying with the status quo. So healthy enough time to collaborate for a new proposal.
11:02
Just sounds like no one wants to budge/relent.
11:08
Urgency shouldn't take the place of doing the right thing. I know there are smarter people that would disagree with this situationally (and I would agree - just not in this situation 🙂 ).
Avatar
We’ve been talking a lot about the V factor. Here’s a model that tries to show the difference between V = veHNT and V = sqrt(veHNT). A lot of people have said they intend to delegate veHNT towards MOBILE. If veHNT are distributed more evenly between IOT and MOBILE, it makes less of a difference to IOT or MOBILE whether a square root is used or not for the V factor, but the result is similar for Dabba. Taking the square root makes it easier for subDAOs that can’t get a large veHNT delegation. This can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your viewpoint. A lot has been said about potential “bad” subDAOs siphoning off HNT. I’ll reiterate my point: If they harm the Helium DAO, and don’t have a lot of veHNT, we can just all vote to kick them out. If they do have significant veHNT… Then the square root helps them less.
11:08
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Click to see attachment 🖼️
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:11 AM
Man, the desire for freedom units is strong. 😅 (I'm not actually requesting that)
😁 1
😄 1
11:13
I do think some graphs would help on the different extrapolations representing "bad", "reasonable", and "best case"
Avatar
Oh, dang. I could have used $ at least. Sorry the dollar is so weak these days.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Oh, dang. I could have used $ at least. Sorry the dollar is so weak these days.
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:14 AM
Don't worry, [the weakness] is intentional. 😄 /sarcasm (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
I do think some graphs would help on the different extrapolations representing "bad", "reasonable", and "best case"
Graphing things in multiple dimensions is hard. I do have Tufte’s books here. You could lobby Foundation to give me a grant to make graphs of things, that would be fun. 🤩 But seriously, this is really just intended to show what the square root does on the V. Glad to take suggestions for other reasonable scenarios.
Avatar
Took me a while to realize those were the 'units' you were talking about.
Avatar
At least it’s not JPY.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Graphing things in multiple dimensions is hard. I do have Tufte’s books here. You could lobby Foundation to give me a grant to make graphs of things, that would be fun. 🤩 But seriously, this is really just intended to show what the square root does on the V. Glad to take suggestions for other reasonable scenarios.
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:17 AM
Understood. I think there have to be some given assumptions/extrapolations on devices onboarded, rate of onboarding, and amount of veHNT staked. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
I do think some graphs would help on the different extrapolations representing "bad", "reasonable", and "best case"
Graphs are unhelpful and useless in representing the model, or so I've been told when I made them. Suffice it to say that all models are just that, someones assumptions at what could be, there isn't really a limit on upside or downside.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Graphs are unhelpful and useless in representing the model, or so I've been told when I made them. Suffice it to say that all models are just that, someones assumptions at what could be, there isn't really a limit on upside or downside.
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:18 AM
I think they're helpful when showing definitively when things have gone off track and course correction is necessary.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Understood. I think there have to be some given assumptions/extrapolations on devices onboarded, rate of onboarding, and amount of veHNT staked. (edited)
This is just HIP-80, so device count is not relevant. The amount of veHNT delegated is arbitrarily assigned. If I flip IOT and MOBILE, you can see a similar result for Dabba, the little one. The square root is most important on the edges,.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
I think they're helpful when showing definitively when things have gone off track and course correction is necessary.
There is no such thing as definitive, just assumptions
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There is no such thing as definitive, just assumptions
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:20 AM
Hrm, I disagree in part. Definitively would be achieved when we would both assume that a condition arrives at the same conclusion.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Click to see attachment 🖼️
So really the point is, look at Dabba. They’re little and weak. (We say now, before finding out they are funded by BlackRock. Troll ) They can only muster a little bit of veHNT, and they will get squashed if we count the linear amount of veHNT. Now if we take the square root of veHNT, Dabba gets a bit more of a chance. (Remember, they’re also getting the Floor of 7 here as support.)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:21 AM
I’d argue it the other way. If WiFi Dabba is acting out of line, we lessen the community’s ability to crush WiFi dabba’s HNT emissions
11:22
The author of the HIP who added the square root has since backed off support for a square root
11:23
There was a whole discussion in the 81 channel about it where we came to a consensus that square root wasn’t the correct function to use and couldn’t come to an exponent we thought was good so punted on it
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There is no such thing as definitive, just assumptions
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:25 AM
Sounds like a definitive assumption. 😄
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’d argue it the other way. If WiFi Dabba is acting out of line, we lessen the community’s ability to crush WiFi dabba’s HNT emissions
What do you mean by 'acting out of line'? If a subDAO's is being downright adversarial/hostile to Helium, couldn't we just propose a hip to expel them and pass it with 2/3 of veHNT?
Avatar
I think the fundamental question is, do we want to attract new subDAOs, or don’t we? As KeithR has pointed out, they can always start their own flywheel, so we do need to offer them some incentive if we want them to join.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Sounds like a definitive assumption. 😄
There are 3 variables that are all unlimited, unless you will look at them across all of R in all 3 dimensions you’re just making assumptions.
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
What do you mean by 'acting out of line'? If a subDAO's is being downright adversarial/hostile to Helium, couldn't we just propose a hip to expel them and pass it with 2/3 of veHNT?
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:26 AM
It’s not that simple. It’s also really difficult to prove in the short term with HNT bleeding every day
11:27
Pollen lived on for a few months after the rug, I still get PCN every week
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s not that simple. It’s also really difficult to prove in the short term with HNT bleeding every day
Right, so if it's clear they're bad actors they get booted, if it's unclear, then the people who have millions of $ worth of HNT locked up into veHNT have a huge incentive to sus that out quickly, right?
👆🏼 1
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:28 AM
So it sounds like a mathematical way to achieve a ceiling is desired as it establishes minimum viable equality.... however the desire for subDAOs to be rewarded for doing well as a means to encourage (innovate or die) such that there is no charity?
11:29
Is this ^^ REALLY what we're arguing over?
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Right, so if it's clear they're bad actors they get booted, if it's unclear, then the people who have millions of $ worth of HNT locked up into veHNT have a huge incentive to sus that out quickly, right?
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:30 AM
How do we determine that though? Through what metric? Who gets to decide to put it up to a vote? It’s a solution that just creates more problems.
11:31
We don’t even have the ability to slash yet, we need to draw up a huge HIP giving those powers out and under what circumstances. It’s going to be another order of magnitude more difficult to come up with expulsion criteria
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There are 3 variables that are all unlimited, unless you will look at them across all of R in all 3 dimensions you’re just making assumptions.
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:36 AM
There is a limited supply of HNT and therefore veHNT, is there not?
Avatar
Max, I just happened to see your name change. Have you considered getting this phrase as a tattoo? I’m just having a little fun. On a plane to see the MotoGP 🙂 (edited)
😄 1
🏍️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
There is a limited supply of HNT and therefore veHNT, is there not?
Fair point, not quite all of R but still more than large enough to make this infeasible. 👍
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
How do we determine that though? Through what metric? Who gets to decide to put it up to a vote? It’s a solution that just creates more problems.
Easy. Someone thinks subDAO X is being bad actor. They propose a HIP in which they lay out all the evidence for why subDAO X is bad actor and a big meanie and should be booted out of the club. They use the same mechanism as we've done with dozens of HIP's so far to submit the hip. If the evidence convinces 2/3 of veHNT holders, the bad actor gets booted. The people with the most voting power are also the people most aligned with the long term success of Helium, since they have a ton "locked up" which will lose value if bad actors are allowed on the network.
👆🏼 1
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Easy. Someone thinks subDAO X is being bad actor. They propose a HIP in which they lay out all the evidence for why subDAO X is bad actor and a big meanie and should be booted out of the club. They use the same mechanism as we've done with dozens of HIP's so far to submit the hip. If the evidence convinces 2/3 of veHNT holders, the bad actor gets booted. The people with the most voting power are also the people most aligned with the long term success of Helium, since they have a ton "locked up" which will lose value if bad actors are allowed on the network.
This is either ignorant or naive, history has shown that it never is so fast nor black and white.
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:38 AM
That’s just not realistic as we’ve seen in Helium and the industry in general. It took months to stop Panther X and Deeper from leaching HNT
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Max, I just happened to see your name change. Have you considered getting this phrase as a tattoo? I’m just having a little fun. On a plane to see the MotoGP 🙂 (edited)
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/13/2023 11:39 AM
Plz stay focused on the hip discussion.
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:39 AM
I get in a perfect text book scenario that would be a remedy. It’s just not realistic in the real world
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
Plz stay focused on the hip discussion.
Fair enough. Will do. I couldn’t resist though 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That’s just not realistic as we’ve seen in Helium and the industry in general. It took months to stop Panther X and Deeper from leaching HNT
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/13/2023 11:39 AM
I remember people were angry about Deeper.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:39 AM
Would it be reasonable to suggest a rotating collaborative score, such that all veHNT holders could vote, kind of like Jaybob suggests - such that you can't vote for your own DAO, but could express support for multiple other DAOs supporting the entire ecosystem? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
I remember people were angry about Deeper.
Yeah. Deeper had me feeling some kinda way
Avatar
Remember that Deeper was discovered in a world with pretty good observability. Now think about some small subDAO that has little observability (no/limited explorer, no etl etc). How easy do you think it is to determine that it is over the line? Probably very hard.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Would it be reasonable to suggest a rotating collaborative score, such that all veHNT holders could vote, kind of like Jaybob suggests - such that you can't vote for your own DAO, but could express support for multiple other DAOs supporting the entire ecosystem? (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:41 AM
No, they are crypto wallets. No way to track that
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 11:41 AM
Sorry, wouldn't we be able to vote with veDNT?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:42 AM
No, it just creates subDAO vs subDAO attacks
👀 1
11:42
veHNT allows all HNT holders the ability to get exposure to whatever subDAO they want
11:43
Whether or not you agree with the DAO/subDAO structure, HIP-51 was incredibly nuanced in how it handled most situations.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
This is either ignorant or naive, history has shown that it never is so fast nor black and white.
Right, so the general issue is: (a) we want to keep bad actors off the network to enhance the long term value of Helium network (b) it's difficult and time consuming to discern who bad actors are. My contention is that the current veHNT voting structure means individuals and entities that have millions of $ of HNT staked will be well incentivized to overcome the obstacles inherent in (b) for the purpose of (a)
👍 2
11:49
Anyway, what I'm saying is applicable to both hips really, so it's probably outside the scope of this channel.
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Right, so if it's clear they're bad actors they get booted, if it's unclear, then the people who have millions of $ worth of HNT locked up into veHNT have a huge incentive to sus that out quickly, right?
Correct really there are less protections and we want strong vetting of new projects
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Correct really there are less protections and we want strong vetting of new projects
New projects will need a 2/3 veHNT approval vote to onboard right?
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Anyway, what I'm saying is applicable to both hips really, so it's probably outside the scope of this channel.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:51 AM
51/81 makes it nearly impossible to do this on a large scale because of the necessary burn to earn tokens. 80 emits tokens on a large scale on day 1. VeHNT delegation is a quicker action to limit the subDAO gaming, adding a square root reduces the veHNT holders ability to sus out subDAOs quickly by a factor of 10
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Correct really there are less protections and we want strong vetting of new projects
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 11:54 AM
Strong vetting by who? Who pays that entity to do the vetting? Where does that funding come from? What happens if they are wrong? What if they get paid by the criminal subDAO? How does the vetting process slow down network growth if it takes a year to go through that process, and a good network makes their own token?
11:54
We can high five each other and pretend these internal controls will exist but in reality, they probably wont.
11:59
Anyway, I’m sure I won’t get answers to these questions either. Let’s push ahead with the vote so the people over exposed to Mobile can get a marginal increase in HNT after the premine wrecked its redeem value.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Strong vetting by who? Who pays that entity to do the vetting? Where does that funding come from? What happens if they are wrong? What if they get paid by the criminal subDAO? How does the vetting process slow down network growth if it takes a year to go through that process, and a good network makes their own token?
You're asking a lot of great questions. There's probably a HIP we need around standardizing/streamlining a vetting process for new subDAO's, something that provides enough rigor to decrease likelihood of bad actors getting on but not so strict it slows down progress. Not an easy puzzle to solve
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 12:18 PM
Easier to just abstract away the incentive to cheat by incentivizing growth and burn. Even good actors will just sit around without growth leaving their miners and syphon off HNT from the floor subsidy
12:20
The only reason we have a floor is I asked like 2 weeks ago why we don’t just give everyone a floor as a joke (since if everyone has a floor, no one has a floor). I really didn’t think that would be taken seriously
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
You're asking a lot of great questions. There's probably a HIP we need around standardizing/streamlining a vetting process for new subDAO's, something that provides enough rigor to decrease likelihood of bad actors getting on but not so strict it slows down progress. Not an easy puzzle to solve
For sure this just gives as a base to work from as each subdao will likely need catered too in some way
12:33
But mobile was added with a HIP so will all others
12:34
And it will be vetted by VeHNT vote...
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
And it will be vetted by VeHNT vote...
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 12:41 PM
So no oversight committee? Just veHNT vote? How can we trust veHNT vote with no disclosures to be the gatekeepers and the police but not trust them to delegate veHNT?
12:43
This HIP’s readiness for a vote is an absolute joke and whoever decided to go against the community’s feedback that it wasn’t ready for a vote should be ashamed
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
And it will be vetted by VeHNT vote...
Yeah, as an aside, I really love the veHNT vote system, where folks who are locked up longer get more voting power. It really works to align incentives through a mechanism that's way better than for example traditional stock ownership in a public company. It helps address the problem of "time preference", folks who are 'locked' in long term will be able to make those tougher 'short term pain, long term gain' decisions, that are less incentivized if you can dump your investment at any point.
10k 2
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
So no oversight committee? Just veHNT vote? How can we trust veHNT vote with no disclosures to be the gatekeepers and the police but not trust them to delegate veHNT?
They do get to delegate HNT, whether either or neither hip passes. It's just a difference of that sqrt() factor in the case of hip 80 vs leaving it as linear for HIP 81 (or HIP 51).
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The only reason we have a floor is I asked like 2 weeks ago why we don’t just give everyone a floor as a joke (since if everyone has a floor, no one has a floor). I really didn’t think that would be taken seriously
Good ideas turn up in the darnedest places sometimes.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 12:47 PM
Right but the square root makes the delegation effect much blunter to guard against bad voters We can’t then rely on them to kick subDAOs out and let subDAOs in if that’s the argument
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Good ideas turn up in the darnedest places sometimes.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 12:48 PM
The result you are trying to achieve isn’t overly terrible. The way this HIP goes about it is pretty awful and ripe for gaming. I’m not saying my HIP is any better, I just slapped a solution together because we were told we needed something before migration. Apparently that’s not the case
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Easier to just abstract away the incentive to cheat by incentivizing growth and burn. Even good actors will just sit around without growth leaving their miners and syphon off HNT from the floor subsidy
I think this is the key argument against 80. It’s so much cleaner and more efficient to take away the incentive to cheat than it is to leave a possible incentive out there with a plan to police the cheaters if they appear.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I think this is the key argument against 80. It’s so much cleaner and more efficient to take away the incentive to cheat than it is to leave a possible incentive out there with a plan to police the cheaters if they appear.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 12:52 PM
Believe @n_ would agree with this line of thinking as well
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/13/2023 1:05 PM
Fortunately I have two friends with doctorates in math so I'll be pestering them about this formula to see if they have any immediately better/distinct alternatives. (they are not economists though) (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The result you are trying to achieve isn’t overly terrible. The way this HIP goes about it is pretty awful and ripe for gaming. I’m not saying my HIP is any better, I just slapped a solution together because we were told we needed something before migration. Apparently that’s not the case
Yeah, you make a fair point. See my earlier "nit" about HIP 80, frankly, I think both hip's are a bit complicated for what they're trying to accomplish. I would just set a temporary and relatively low floor % of emissions for both IoT and Mobile, really as a near term guardrail against uncertainty in how the utility score approach is going to shake out. Frankly I don't think anyone on here can confidently say what the utility scores will be for either HIP 51, 80, 81 both near and long term given the large number of changing variables interacting nonlinearly here. A guardrail period allows us to get real world data on how this utility score works rather that simulation and speculation. (a) The downside of my temporary low floor rate approach is that a dying/defunct MOBILE or IoT network could bleed off some small % of value over a few years when it should just die. (b) The upside is both Mobile and IoT have some minimum value injection they can rely on to get through tough times. I would think both folks heavily invested in either or both Mobile and IoT would choose the upside of (b) and accept the potential downside of (a). Full disclosure I have a lot invested in both IoT and Mobile, really want both to succeed, and frankly I think either failing is going be very bad for the other.
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Yeah, you make a fair point. See my earlier "nit" about HIP 80, frankly, I think both hip's are a bit complicated for what they're trying to accomplish. I would just set a temporary and relatively low floor % of emissions for both IoT and Mobile, really as a near term guardrail against uncertainty in how the utility score approach is going to shake out. Frankly I don't think anyone on here can confidently say what the utility scores will be for either HIP 51, 80, 81 both near and long term given the large number of changing variables interacting nonlinearly here. A guardrail period allows us to get real world data on how this utility score works rather that simulation and speculation. (a) The downside of my temporary low floor rate approach is that a dying/defunct MOBILE or IoT network could bleed off some small % of value over a few years when it should just die. (b) The upside is both Mobile and IoT have some minimum value injection they can rely on to get through tough times. I would think both folks heavily invested in either or both Mobile and IoT would choose the upside of (b) and accept the potential downside of (a). Full disclosure I have a lot invested in both IoT and Mobile, really want both to succeed, and frankly I think either failing is going be very bad for the other.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:07 PM
81 literally does nothing, it just defines what happens between April 18 and August 1
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Yeah, you make a fair point. See my earlier "nit" about HIP 80, frankly, I think both hip's are a bit complicated for what they're trying to accomplish. I would just set a temporary and relatively low floor % of emissions for both IoT and Mobile, really as a near term guardrail against uncertainty in how the utility score approach is going to shake out. Frankly I don't think anyone on here can confidently say what the utility scores will be for either HIP 51, 80, 81 both near and long term given the large number of changing variables interacting nonlinearly here. A guardrail period allows us to get real world data on how this utility score works rather that simulation and speculation. (a) The downside of my temporary low floor rate approach is that a dying/defunct MOBILE or IoT network could bleed off some small % of value over a few years when it should just die. (b) The upside is both Mobile and IoT have some minimum value injection they can rely on to get through tough times. I would think both folks heavily invested in either or both Mobile and IoT would choose the upside of (b) and accept the potential downside of (a). Full disclosure I have a lot invested in both IoT and Mobile, really want both to succeed, and frankly I think either failing is going be very bad for the other.
Yup 😂
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Believe @n_ would agree with this line of thinking as well
idk the context but yes pls don't make us implement slashing. I don't want nukes sitting around bec then we have to figure out who holds the launch codes.
👆 1
😅 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
81 literally does nothing, it just defines what happens between April 18 and August 1
Right, HIP 81 is adjusting the minimum onboarding fee which feeds into that A value, right? My point is really tangential to that. I'm saying regardless of what the utility score formula is, (whether it includes A, a sqrt on V, what minimum onboarding $ are...) its very complex and difficult to predict potentially weird/unintended outcomes. I think explicit, relatively small, relatively short term guardrails would be a good idea. [edit, corrected HIP ref to 81] (edited)
Avatar
I didn't see anything obvious in 80 that would make us need slashing more tho?
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
n_
I didn't see anything obvious in 80 that would make us need slashing more tho?
Per HIP-81, the missing MOBILE onboarding fees are deferred until 1 August. If they aren’t paid somehow by then, by somebody, then the DAO will need to slash them from the MOBILE treasury, per HIP-81. HIP-80 doesn’t require slashing.
Avatar
Avatar
n_
I didn't see anything obvious in 80 that would make us need slashing more tho?
Thanks for clearing that up
Avatar
Avatar
n_
idk the context but yes pls don't make us implement slashing. I don't want nukes sitting around bec then we have to figure out who holds the launch codes.
The guy with the fancy hair holds the launch codes. I used to have fancy hair, but it’s thinned a lot in the past few years. Not doing a comb-over though.
😆 3
Avatar
Avatar
n_
I didn't see anything obvious in 80 that would make us need slashing more tho?
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:21 PM
Crypto scam coming in as a new subDAO onboards maybe 100 devices before “manufacturing delays” set in. In 51 there is a tiny amount of HNT emitted to the subDAO until it starts burning meaningful amounts of HNT. Under 80 it’s a firehouse of HNT ~8-10% of emissions until it’s somehow stopped.
13:22
There have been scammers in this ecosystem before setting out fake devices. They can it much more efficiently under 80’s architecture
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The guy with the fancy hair holds the launch codes. I used to have fancy hair, but it’s thinned a lot in the past few years. Not doing a comb-over though.
You mean you nick name was Fabio ferebee?
🤣 1
Avatar
Let’s take a step back here. Let’s say Dabba is our adversarial subDAO. They are out to “steal” our HNT. The sweet-talk themselves in the door, make no revenue. They get a massive 5% of all veHNT. Let’s say they do that by buying HNT and staking it all for 48 months, while in general only 10% of HNT is staked. So that means they need 0.5% of all HNT. At today’s Oracle Price, that’s a cool $1.2M. That’s a sunk cost, as it’s locked for 48 months, and they are a vampire and will kill Helium. What do they get for that cool $1.2M?
13:25
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Crypto scam coming in as a new subDAO onboards maybe 100 devices before “manufacturing delays” set in. In 51 there is a tiny amount of HNT emitted to the subDAO until it starts burning meaningful amounts of HNT. Under 80 it’s a firehouse of HNT ~8-10% of emissions until it’s somehow stopped.
The corollary here is that you have to be voted in to be a new subdao. And don't we want to give new subdaos every chance to succeed?
Avatar
Avatar
n_
The corollary here is that you have to be voted in to be a new subdao. And don't we want to give new subdaos every chance to succeed?
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:26 PM
We want them to prove it to get rewards through DC burn.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We want them to prove it to get rewards through DC burn.
Right but doesn't there need to be an incentive for people buying their miners to set up the miners? If they are getting no backing HNT the flywheel isn't going to work well. There's some number that's right here. Not saying HIP-80 is necessarily it. But 0 isn't right either.
13:27
Any network is going to face a chicken and egg problem, needing to build coverage before they can get users and DC burn.
13:28
I like the formula in HIP-80. I feel like the discussion probably should be more around what are the right floors.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:28 PM
No, the number of devices doesn’t matter in 80. An unsavory founder can ship units to himself, always be sold out and get the same amount of HNT with 20 fake units as 100,000 real ones
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Let’s take a step back here. Let’s say Dabba is our adversarial subDAO. They are out to “steal” our HNT. The sweet-talk themselves in the door, make no revenue. They get a massive 5% of all veHNT. Let’s say they do that by buying HNT and staking it all for 48 months, while in general only 10% of HNT is staked. So that means they need 0.5% of all HNT. At today’s Oracle Price, that’s a cool $1.2M. That’s a sunk cost, as it’s locked for 48 months, and they are a vampire and will kill Helium. What do they get for that cool $1.2M?
So with the dangerous square root in HIP-80, they’re getting 6.1% of HNT emissions. At 1.25M HNT/month, at $1.70/HNT, that’s a cool $130,000/month. It takes them 10 months to break even with that scam. If they wait until MOBILE is doing $100,000 revenue, it nets them $50,000/month. If they do it when MOBILE is doing $1M/month, it nets them $25,000/month. Now maybe HNT has a different price then. Well, then it will also cost them more to buy the HNT they need to get the veHNT to run the scam. Sounds like a pretty stupid scam to me.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
n_
The corollary here is that you have to be voted in to be a new subdao. And don't we want to give new subdaos every chance to succeed?
Absolutely
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:29 PM
If you never ship you keep all the DNT for yourself and just redeem it for HNT
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So with the dangerous square root in HIP-80, they’re getting 6.1% of HNT emissions. At 1.25M HNT/month, at $1.70/HNT, that’s a cool $130,000/month. It takes them 10 months to break even with that scam. If they wait until MOBILE is doing $100,000 revenue, it nets them $50,000/month. If they do it when MOBILE is doing $1M/month, it nets them $25,000/month. Now maybe HNT has a different price then. Well, then it will also cost them more to buy the HNT they need to get the veHNT to run the scam. Sounds like a pretty stupid scam to me.
What do the numbers look like if they stake no hnt?
Avatar
Avatar
n_
What do the numbers look like if they stake no hnt?
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:29 PM
0 veHNT is 1.9% (edited)
Avatar
What's that end up being a month in $ terms?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:30 PM
Removing the square root takes that down by a factor of 10
13:30
We don’t talk fiat but 36,000 HNT/month
Avatar
Yeah HNT terms works too.
13:31
Just trying to figure out how much you need to risk vs what reward to figure out how much you can scam
13:31
It sounds like the scam doesn't work if you're going to try to back yourself with vehnt. Does it work if you don't back yourself at all with vehnt?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:32 PM
Marketing spend plus $5 of onboard burn likely gets you a year of 100,000 HNT/month
Avatar
So the barrier to entry here is convincing the dao that whatever you're doing is a good idea.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:33 PM
Exactly
13:33
Clean water in Africa through blockchain. Who says no
13:33
It’s arguably not a crime if you don’t actually sell any units
Avatar
Yeah. So I think the trade-off here is that the dao is effectively subsidizing new subdaos to incubate them.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
0 veHNT is 1.9% (edited)
WTF? If you have zero veHNT, yeah, the function V = max(1, sqrt(0)) is 1. So MOBILE has maybe 10M HNT staked, or 1B veHNT. max(1, sqrt(1B)) is 30,000. It’s 30,000 on the one side and 1 on the other. In this context, 1 is zero.
Avatar
Oh. Yeah that's much less than 1.9% lol
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Just trying to figure out how much you need to risk vs what reward to figure out how much you can scam
I also put forward there is a pool that must accumulated before it can be extracted that would easily solve that problem
Avatar
Sorry if this is not obvious. In the table above, the numbers for veHNT are arbitrary. You can read them like percentages, if you like. But they are rather large actually.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I also put forward there is a pool that must accumulated before it can be extracted that would easily solve that problem
Oh you mean like freeze treasury swaps for some time until a threshold? I like that.
👍 1
13:35
That's also easy to implement.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I also put forward there is a pool that must accumulated before it can be extracted that would easily solve that problem
Now that’s a HIP I would support. 😁
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:36 PM
30,000 is 900 M staked elsewhere
❔ 1
Avatar
Well. I guess we'd need to figure out where the hnt goes if they don't hit the goal. But yeah.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:36 PM
Square root of 900 million is 30,000
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Square root of 900 million is 30,000
In this context, 900 million is the same as one billion, don’t you think? What is your argument again?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:37 PM
There’s also a financial incentive to vote against the herd so it’ll never be 0
13:38
The argument is there likely a year where a bulkshit project can extract 8-10% of the HNT
13:38
Project sold out? Oh lemme stake towards it to get in now
13:38
There’s no incentive to ship miners under 80
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Well. I guess we'd need to figure out where the hnt goes if they don't hit the goal. But yeah.
True or just have some sort of time limit and you redistribute to all other subdaos?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There’s also a financial incentive to vote against the herd so it’ll never be 0
I didn’t say it would be 0. You proposed that. In my example, I suggested that the hypothetical adversarial subDAO would have “5”, representing 5% of all total veHNT. With a hypothetical 100% lock rate vs. a hypothetical 10% lock rate for HNT as a whole, that means the “criminal” subDAO would need 0.5% of all HNT. Which is $1.2M at today’s price.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
True or just have some sort of time limit and you redistribute to all other subdaos?
Or burn it 🔥
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The argument is there likely a year where a bulkshit project can extract 8-10% of the HNT
Sorry Max, you’re just [making ridiculous claims] at this point. How does that work? In the interest of sanity, let me edit that and replace the word “bullshitting” with an alternative phrase. I duly apologize to Max for lowering my level of discourse. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Or burn it 🔥
😆 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:40 PM
I’ll just do it then
13:41
I already have my puppet founder onboard
13:41
Good luck
13:43
A convicted felon was able to run a DeWi scam when everyone knew he was a convicted felon. You don’t think some really good marketing can come in and fool the helium community for a year?
Avatar
He didn’t fool me for a second. 😉 I’ll be happy to debate your puppet founder HIP here on Discord. Are we getting off topic?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:45 PM
That’s great but it’s not your network and enough people will go along with adding more subDAOs (edited)
13:48
But good job by you to not get fooled. Plenty of VCs who would have wittingly or unwittingly propped it up with veHNT if it was a subDAO did get fooled
13:50
If you just assume a normal distribution of veHNT staking in the beginning because people are excited and you get the most DNTs from the start, take the first month’s HNT and lock it up for 4 years it’ll be almost impossible to vote it out.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I didn’t say it would be 0. You proposed that. In my example, I suggested that the hypothetical adversarial subDAO would have “5”, representing 5% of all total veHNT. With a hypothetical 100% lock rate vs. a hypothetical 10% lock rate for HNT as a whole, that means the “criminal” subDAO would need 0.5% of all HNT. Which is $1.2M at today’s price.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:53 PM
The same veHNT voters that allow the subDAO to exist would delegate towards it
13:53
At least for a while
13:54
Low risk in the 51 system because no burn means no HNT in the treasury
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Oh you mean like freeze treasury swaps for some time until a threshold? I like that.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:55 PM
This inhibits the flywheel and hurts good actors
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Sorry Max, you’re just [making ridiculous claims] at this point. How does that work? In the interest of sanity, let me edit that and replace the word “bullshitting” with an alternative phrase. I duly apologize to Max for lowering my level of discourse. (edited)
How is this respectful?
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I also put forward there is a pool that must accumulated before it can be extracted that would easily solve that problem
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:56 PM
Pool of how much? Unlocks based on what? Data transfer amount? How is that fair for some networks that take longer to get data?
13:57
Really easy to cycle fake data through to hit that threshold
Avatar
Avatar
n_
Well. I guess we'd need to figure out where the hnt goes if they don't hit the goal. But yeah.
Slashing discussion all over again, essentially
☢️ 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:58 PM
Raises the barrier a bit but in a bull market its pennies
Avatar
Avatar
groot
How is this respectful?
It’s an outlandish claim to make that a “bullshit” project can extract 8-10% of HNT emissions. I think it’s fair to call that “bullshit” if no explanation is given, sorry.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:59 PM
I’ve explained it
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It’s an outlandish claim to make that a “bullshit” project can extract 8-10% of HNT emissions. I think it’s fair to call that “bullshit” if no explanation is given, sorry.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 1:59 PM
You can say the same thing respectfully. 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 1:59 PM
Create a subDAO, market it well, get it approved
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It’s an outlandish claim to make that a “bullshit” project can extract 8-10% of HNT emissions. I think it’s fair to call that “bullshit” if no explanation is given, sorry.
rules for thee but not for me
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve explained it
Please link to your explanation.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
rules for thee but not for me
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:01 PM
Didn't you know? That's the mod/admin motto around here. 😉
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Create a subDAO, market it well, get it approved
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:01 PM
People will delegate veHNT towards that project they just approved, the floor data number will be used and you have no incentive to onboard devices because the pot is the same with 1 onboarded device vs 1 million.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Create a subDAO, market it well, get it approved
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/13/2023 2:01 PM
Talk to Neil, BFGDao 😅
😆 2
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Didn't you know? That's the mod/admin motto around here. 😉
@Keenan is probably sleeping or something, he was so quick to call out Max a few hours ago he must’ve missed this..
😅 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I’ve explained it
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:02 PM
To be fair I missed it too. Could you run the math by us real quick so we're all on the same page? 🙂
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:02 PM
Scroll up like 2 messages
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Scroll up like 2 messages
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:02 PM
No, I mean actual math. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
groot
@Keenan is probably sleeping or something, he was so quick to call out Max a few hours ago he must’ve missed this..
actually just got off a video call. there are more mods than just me. feel free to tag another one
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
No, I mean actual math. 🙂
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:03 PM
I’m on mobile will upload a spreadsheet later
❤️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
actually just got off a video call. there are more mods than just me. feel free to tag another one
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:03 PM
Just being silly. No real issues here. 🙂
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Just being silly. No real issues here. 🙂
i figure dumpling has it handled anyway!
👍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:04 PM
Just run the model for 3 subDAOs and assume 20-35% of the veHNT going towards the new cool subDAO
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
i figure dumpling has it handled anyway!
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:04 PM
I swear she doesn't sleep. lol
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
actually just got off a video call. there are more mods than just me. feel free to tag another one
I figured you were always watching 🙃
👀 1
😂 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:04 PM
I’ve been called a bullshitter by way smarter people who ended up being wrong too. It’s fine.
14:05
Apparently having a username of root and password of root on your super secure mapper device was a legitimate security concern.
😆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:08 PM
Really basic back of the napkin math assuming an even distribution of veHNT or close to it, IOT has 40, Mobile has 7, fake subDAO has 7. That’s 75% to IOT, 12.9% to Mobile, 12.9% to fake subDAO. (edited)
14:08
Fake subDAO realistically gets more delegation because it has less dilution
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
I swear she doesn't sleep. lol
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/13/2023 2:09 PM
I do, but sleep with eyes open 😂
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
I do, but sleep with eyes open 😂
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:10 PM
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
I do, but sleep with eyes open 😂
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:11 PM
My cat does that sometimes. It's super creepy. lol
🤣 1
14:12
Carry on. Sorry for the distraction 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:12 PM
Let’s be really conservative and round down, after HST is removed we’re looking at 210,000 HNT/month pre halving, 105,000HNT/month post august 1
Avatar
So anyway, it’s a bit of a stretch to clain that the entire Helium DAO will be taken for a ride by an adversarial subDAO. Referencing Pollen, I read their whitepaper on 2022-02-10 and immediately posted to Joe’s Crypto Utility server that it’s a scam. (Which is not to say I don’t believe people had a lot of fun with it.) There are plenty of people here smarter than I am. We’ll figure it out.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So anyway, it’s a bit of a stretch to clain that the entire Helium DAO will be taken for a ride by an adversarial subDAO. Referencing Pollen, I read their whitepaper on 2022-02-10 and immediately posted to Joe’s Crypto Utility server that it’s a scam. (Which is not to say I don’t believe people had a lot of fun with it.) There are plenty of people here smarter than I am. We’ll figure it out.
Do you hold 33% of voting power to stop it?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:14 PM
We’re so fucked
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Let’s be really conservative and round down, after HST is removed we’re looking at 210,000 HNT/month pre halving, 105,000HNT/month post august 1
So how do you get those 105,000 HNT with a pre-revenue subDAO under HIP-80 when considering the V score with or without a square root of veHNT?
Avatar
If you honestly believe every possible rug is predictable in advance you’re either arrogant or ignorant
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So how do you get those 105,000 HNT with a pre-revenue subDAO under HIP-80 when considering the V score with or without a square root of veHNT?
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:15 PM
Bro, I just did the math
14:15
Scroll up like 5 messages
14:15
Is anyone else having an issue following along?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Bro, I just did the math
Oh, sorry. Fake subDAO gets 33% veHNT?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If you honestly believe every possible rug is predictable in advance you’re either arrogant or ignorant
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:16 PM
Ease up man...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:16 PM
Yes, and I think that number is conservative when the other DNTs will have already halved
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Ease up man...
I just don’t believe ‘oh we’ll figure it out’ is a viable strategy.
💯 3
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:17 PM
There are no guardrails available to “figure it out”
14:17
We don’t want to have a nuke sitting around
14:18
We don’t need the nuke under 51
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I just don’t believe ‘oh we’ll figure it out’ is a viable strategy.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:18 PM
100%. But it can be said without the ad hominem, yeah? 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Yes, and I think that number is conservative when the other DNTs will have already halved
So, let me get this right, you think that a third or possibly even half of veHNT will be delegated to a scam subDAO.
14:18
That has zero revenue.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
100%. But it can be said without the ad hominem, yeah? 🙂
Not really an ad hominem when it’s directed at everyone but alright, fair.
🍻 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So, let me get this right, you think that a third or possibly even half of veHNT will be delegated to a scam subDAO.
You don’t know it is a scam subDAO at that point
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So, let me get this right, you think that a third or possibly even half of veHNT will be delegated to a scam subDAO.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:19 PM
Getting in early on a new revolutionary project that you can’t even buy hardware for yet?
Avatar
That comes later, you can’t look into the future
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:20 PM
Your relative stake in the DNT is higher early on compared to the legacy subDAOs
Avatar
For all we know MOBILE could be that subDAO, also with zero revenue.
14:20
It hopefully isn’t, but none of us has guarantees..
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:20 PM
Did Ferebee snuff out panther X and deeper?
🔫 1
14:21
Plus good luck being the voice of dissent. Been there, everyone calls you a FUDDER and tells you to shut up
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So, let me get this right, you think that a third or possibly even half of veHNT will be delegated to a scam subDAO.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 2:22 PM
If I understand Max right, you wouldn't have to stake any veHNT in the first place to pull the scam. (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:22 PM
Also pretty sure half the HIP-80 authors own equity in Pollen OpCo so like let’s not have revisionist history about how easy these things are to snuff out (edited)
14:25
Fine Elon, sniff out (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You don’t know it is a scam subDAO at that point
nosmaster89 04/13/2023 2:37 PM
wen crankk subDAO . thats a real possibility and a real worry 😄
🤢 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:38 PM
That’s an interesting one because idk who has the authority to say yes and no to an application
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/13/2023 2:39 PM
either way if io5 and crankk prove anything the helium network needs to protect its self from others looking to capitalise
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:40 PM
Chris is on the case
14:40
Don’t worry
14:40
Send them over discord. He’ll talk to them
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/13/2023 2:41 PM
i havent had the time to follow today want to fill me in with the tldr 😂
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:41 PM
We don’t have to worry about scams or fraud because the discord mods will stop them.
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
wen crankk subDAO . thats a real possibility and a real worry 😄
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/13/2023 2:41 PM
Over my dead body.
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We don’t have to worry about scams or fraud because the discord mods will stop them.
nosmaster89 04/13/2023 2:42 PM
as long as we dont use thier mods 👀 😂
facepalm 1
😆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:51 PM
We have the best mods. Shout out @~Devo~ (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
i havent had the time to follow today want to fill me in with the tldr 😂
So the question is, will an adversarial network persuade Helium DAO to approve it as a Helium subDAO, so 67% of veHNT vote in favor. Then, will a significant amount of veHNT get delegated to the new subDAO pre-revenue. Well, if so, then it will get HNT emissions. Possibly even more than 10% of all HNT emitted to subDAOs, as long as other subDAOs have no revenue. To me, that sounds unfortunate, but not a Helium-killer situation. Opinions differ. We could also vote to expel the adversarial subDAO with 67% of veHNT, once we determine it’s no good. What is “no good”? That’s a difficult question sometimes, isn’t it? Here’s my model from earlier, modified to show what happens if the EVIL subDAO manages to get 10% of all veHNT. (Which I would find quite amazing, but OK.)
14:52
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So the question is, will an adversarial network persuade Helium DAO to approve it as a Helium subDAO, so 67% of veHNT vote in favor. Then, will a significant amount of veHNT get delegated to the new subDAO pre-revenue. Well, if so, then it will get HNT emissions. Possibly even more than 10% of all HNT emitted to subDAOs, as long as other subDAOs have no revenue. To me, that sounds unfortunate, but not a Helium-killer situation. Opinions differ. We could also vote to expel the adversarial subDAO with 67% of veHNT, once we determine it’s no good. What is “no good”? That’s a difficult question sometimes, isn’t it? Here’s my model from earlier, modified to show what happens if the EVIL subDAO manages to get 10% of all veHNT. (Which I would find quite amazing, but OK.)
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:53 PM
Oh I’m glad you asked. The “killer” part is if the scam network dumps tokens en masse just like the scam manufacturers did.
14:54
There’s two strategies, syphon and stake so you get veto power on every HIP or syphon and dump (edited)
14:55
It’s also not 67% of the veHNT, it’s 67% of the vote. We have very low voter turn out here
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh I’m glad you asked. The “killer” part is if the scam network dumps tokens en masse just like the scam manufacturers did.
In the worst case shown above, the EVIL subDAO would get 100,000 HNT to the treasury per month. Quite a bit. In the Binance MOBILE bug, the exploiters dumped close to 4.8M HNT over several weeks. It was quite unfortunate, but not an extinction event. What scenario are you looking at?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
In the worst case shown above, the EVIL subDAO would get 100,000 HNT to the treasury per month. Quite a bit. In the Binance MOBILE bug, the exploiters dumped close to 4.8M HNT over several weeks. It was quite unfortunate, but not an extinction event. What scenario are you looking at?
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 2:58 PM
I think it's important to look at what daos may come , and be approved, I'd personally love the mappers one and I'm sure many would vote it in, to get 100k to fund the project and have no urgency to burn sounds great
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
In the worst case shown above, the EVIL subDAO would get 100,000 HNT to the treasury per month. Quite a bit. In the Binance MOBILE bug, the exploiters dumped close to 4.8M HNT over several weeks. It was quite unfortunate, but not an extinction event. What scenario are you looking at?
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 2:59 PM
Wasn’t there like a 70% drop in market cap and a fall out of the top 100?
14:59
Seems rather notable
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Wasn’t there like a 70% drop in market cap and a fall out of the top 100?
I believe the Binance exploit was not the single market event in that time period. Also, how do the figures 100,000 and 4,800,000 relate in your mind?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:00 PM
Didn’t binance buy it back and rumors of binance buying it back buoy the price
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I think it's important to look at what daos may come , and be approved, I'd personally love the mappers one and I'm sure many would vote it in, to get 100k to fund the project and have no urgency to burn sounds great
The Mappers DAO I like. I suspect it would get far less than 10% of all veHNT delegated, so maybe it would get less than 100,000 HNT/month, too. Still something to work with. ☺
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 3:02 PM
It's a lot and no pressure to burn
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Didn’t binance buy it back and rumors of binance buying it back buoy the price
I think we don’t actually know, and that’s not on topic here.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 3:02 PM
What's stopping the mappers dao taking 5 years to get to burn?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:02 PM
Why would it get so few? You get a premium for delegating to a DNT prehalving
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think we don’t actually know, and that’s not on topic here.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:03 PM
Well it is because an entity buying back the dumped HNT is different from the doomsday scenario where no one does
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Well it is because an entity buying back the dumped HNT is different from the doomsday scenario where no one does
Did they buy back? How? When? Maybe now, after they announced the delisting? It’s hard to tell.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:05 PM
They allowed withdrawals so they must have. The market believed they would and it was still pretty catastrophic.
15:06
Now imagine that happening again, at some point we lose all credibility
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
What's stopping the mappers dao taking 5 years to get to burn?
The question I would ask is, what is the Mappers DAO going to do, actually? Good question, is there any reason for it to burn in the first place? I think we would discuss that in the lead up to the HIP proposing the subDAO. We might even put success metrics into the Mapper subDAO HIP. Depending on where we get with governance, they might actually be enforceable. I welcome that discussion.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:07 PM
It collects data and sells that data
15:08
Mapper DAO requests the same success metrics IOT and Mobile had or else it’s going to IOTEX
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 3:08 PM
Screw iotex
😂 1
15:08
Lol
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:08 PM
Shhh you’re ruining the negotiation
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Now imagine that happening again, at some point we lose all credibility
Imagine how much credibility we’d lose if we moon, and it’s made out of green cheese. I do believe we can impose reasonable restrictions on future subDAOs. If HIPs need to be written, I’m around, and enjoy arguing about them, apparently. (edited)
😄 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:09 PM
Why bother creating a bunch of restrictions when we can just skip all of that and stick to what’s in 51
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Screw iotex
Now this is one of the checks and balances I expect to see. 😄
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:09 PM
Endless problems this HIP needs to solve
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I think it's important to look at what daos may come , and be approved, I'd personally love the mappers one and I'm sure many would vote it in, to get 100k to fund the project and have no urgency to burn sounds great
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 3:10 PM
Which mappers?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Imagine how much credibility we’d lose if we moon, and it’s made out of green cheese. I do believe we can impose reasonable restrictions on future subDAOs. If HIPs need to be written, I’m around, and enjoy arguing about them, apparently. (edited)
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 3:10 PM
Im sure people can lie, and not deliver data in the time they specify, leading to a lot of hnt lost , the minimum is an issue
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Which mappers?
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 3:10 PM
There's just a general idea about it ATM
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
There's just a general idea about it ATM
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 3:10 PM
Mappers are already included in 53
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 3:10 PM
5g/iot could pay for verification, and then WiFi data could be sold, Bluetooth even
15:11
It could be a multi network mapper
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Mappers are already included in 53
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:11 PM
You can map way more stuff than the CBRS network and it makes no sense for that value to accrue to the mobile token
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/13/2023 3:11 PM
One network alone won't earn much for mappers but combined they could + the sale of the data
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You can map way more stuff than the CBRS network and it makes no sense for that value to accrue to the mobile token
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 3:12 PM
Not saying I agree, just saying mobile mappers already are slated to get a cut. 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:12 PM
Did anyone see Tushar’s tweet the other day about you should always want to be an L1 because you get a huge premium?
❔ 1
muted 2
facepalm 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Not saying I agree, just saying mobile mappers already are slated to get a cut. 🙂
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:12 PM
A cut of that, but there’s a real use for other RF data
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Did anyone see Tushar’s tweet the other day about you should always want to be an L1 because you get a huge premium?
I responded to that. It raises the very real question of, if MOBILE is successful, why shouldn’t it fork and decouple from HNT?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I responded to that. It raises the very real question of, if MOBILE is successful, why shouldn’t it fork and decouple from HNT?
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:14 PM
I don’t know why it shouldn’t decouple now and avoid this shitshow
15:14
Other than the foundation gave nova all the tokens
15:15
Most of the tokens*
Avatar
Any L2 with its own token and decentralized governance will eventually vote to become an L1. Token holders are greedy and the market has shown that L1s get a significant valuation premium.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t know why it shouldn’t decouple now and avoid this shitshow
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 3:15 PM
It was coupled to grow the bags of the large HNT holders that voted it in. Simple...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:16 PM
I learned this week that many of the large HHT holders that used to exist, don’t have those large bags anymore
15:16
I guess medium large
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I don’t know why it shouldn’t decouple now and avoid this shitshow
Well, that’s a good question! Obviously, Nova is holding things together, and all the investors who hold HST. This is one reason why you don’t rug your investors… It’s not that the HST holders can’t vote.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:17 PM
A fork would be through mobile voting
15:17
It would be difficult to get your only customer to agree to a fork when they are the biggest token holder and a large token holder of the thing we’d fork though
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
A fork would be through mobile voting
A fork is simply that the offchain oracles do something different and accept MOBILE burn instead of DC. In principle, easy. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It would be difficult to get your only customer to agree to a fork when they are the biggest token holder and a large token holder of the thing we’d fork though
This is currently the point. However, we do need to remain watchful.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:18 PM
I mean it’s not like crypto mutinies happen in secret
Avatar
In my view, this holds a greater possibility of an extinction event than an adversarial subDAO. Though the more subDAOs we take on, the more the largest one gets diluted.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:20 PM
Like I get you think I’m giving you a hard time sometimes but sneaking in the premine and giving the foundation the ability to emit it however they wanted kinda killed mobile’s bargaining power (edited)
15:20
So all of these little details have unintended consequences
15:22
That was done “because of engineering constraints”
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Like I get you think I’m giving you a hard time sometimes but sneaking in the premine and giving the foundation the ability to emit it however they wanted kinda killed mobile’s bargaining power (edited)
I’m aware of that. It’s also interesting how the large premine of MOBILE has hobbled the treasury exchange rate for a while. I’m still a long way from understanding all of it. So we just do the best we can.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:23 PM
It makes it so you never redeem your mobile and HNT never gets emitted again
15:23
It was put into place by a person who has a ton of HNT and loves token sinks
👆 1
😱 1
👀 1
15:24
And just tucked in there nice and inconspicuously so no one questioned it
Avatar
The same is not true for IOT. Otherwise, this would be like all the halvenings at once, for HNT.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:25 PM
The 5B premine kinda does but not as bad
15:25
“So we could IOT to stake into oracles”
15:25
That never came
15:25
And then we gave half to the miners so they didn’t complain
15:26
I think youre understanding why I like small HIPs and hate using engineering constraints and/or time constraints as an excuse to just pass something (edited)
Avatar
I thought I was done with HIP-78 until it turned out that nobody was going to pay. Phoning people to convince them to pay is more your thing AFAIK, so if you didn’t pull that off either, I don’t need to feel bad I was not successful.
15:28
But that made me go further down the rabbit hole, and reach new conclusions.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:29 PM
I can’t say from who but I got a commitment that it’ll get paid by august 1 if a HIP exists that requires it
15:29
I know how you got to this point on this HIP, you had the right intentions
Avatar
With HIP-78, 1 August would have been quite late. I was quite surprised you got buyin on the provision that the payments are simply deferred.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:30 PM
We have different negotiating styles lol
😄 1
Avatar
You’ve mentioned some interesting attack vectors that seem quite farfetched to me. I’ll just point out that HIP-81 isn’t immune with its A factor, which you present as a form of protection. The A factor of IOT is 63, as 63^4 is about 400,000 Hotspots times $40 onboarding. (Fourth root.) To get an A factor of 17.8, we just need to deploy 100,000 Hotspots @ $1 each, for a total of $100,000. So A is actually no protection at all.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:41 PM
Oh for sure, we need to fix the A
15:42
I tried and ran into dead ends and realized it won’t get fixed until post migration
👀 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
You’ve mentioned some interesting attack vectors that seem quite farfetched to me. I’ll just point out that HIP-81 isn’t immune with its A factor, which you present as a form of protection. The A factor of IOT is 63, as 63^4 is about 400,000 Hotspots times $40 onboarding. (Fourth root.) To get an A factor of 17.8, we just need to deploy 100,000 Hotspots @ $1 each, for a total of $100,000. So A is actually no protection at all.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 3:55 PM
How is that "no protection"? Your hypothetical 100k devices would have to have an onboarding fee of $200 ~$170 each to beat the IOT A. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
How is that "no protection"? Your hypothetical 100k devices would have to have an onboarding fee of $200 ~$170 each to beat the IOT A. (edited)
No, no. The A factor in HIP-51 and HIP-81 is
15:57
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
No, no. The A factor in HIP-51 and HIP-81 is
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 3:57 PM
Yes, I know
15:58
4th root of 17million is 64.2
Avatar
So if you have 400,000 devices @ $40, that gives an A factor of 63.25. If you have 100,000 devices at $1, that gives an A factor of 17.78. So you can reach the same ballpark (factor 3.5) with a fairly minimal investment. $100,000 * 3.5 → $16M, if you will.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 3:59 PM
Fourth root is bad. That’s what got us in this situation
16:00
Mobile said fuck it, give us the 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So if you have 400,000 devices @ $40, that gives an A factor of 63.25. If you have 100,000 devices at $1, that gives an A factor of 17.78. So you can reach the same ballpark (factor 3.5) with a fairly minimal investment. $100,000 * 3.5 → $16M, if you will.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:00 PM
What "3.5"? 100k devices at $170 each is 17million. 4th root is 64.2
Avatar
Could you read https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1096203378490605691 again and get back to me? Maybe I misstated something?
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:01 PM
17.78 isn't even in the same state, let alone ballpark.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Could you read https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1096203378490605691 again and get back to me? Maybe I misstated something?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:02 PM
The math there isn't wrong far as I can tell. It's the "No protection part". 17.78 isn't going to threaten 63.2
Avatar
17.8 is more than a quarter of 63.2. So it gets more than a quarter of the HNT, if the V and D factors were equal.
🤔 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 4:04 PM
But with a minimum onboard of $10 we don’t have this hack
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But with a minimum onboard of $10 we don’t have this hack
Well than instead of 100,000 devices at $1, I’ll do 10,000 devices at $10. Same thing.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
17.8 is more than a quarter of 63.2. So it gets more than a quarter of the HNT, if the V and D factors were equal.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:05 PM
They built out a network. Where's the problem? That what we want to incentivize. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 4:07 PM
Kinda tired so forgive me if this math doesn’t work but what if we calculate the scores as a ratio then 4th root it?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
They built out a network. Where's the problem? That what we want to incentivize. (edited)
This is only relevant in light of the earlier discussion about whether HIP-80 or HIP-81 protect against adversarial subDAOs. HIP-81 has additional protection because it doesn’t have the square root in the V factor. But the square root of the V factor has advantages too.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 4:07 PM
It’s probably should just be a square root though
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Kinda tired so forgive me if this math doesn’t work but what if we calculate the scores as a ratio then 4th root it?
If you suggest taking a fourth root of the DC Burn, that will create poor incentives to build out DC Burn.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
This is only relevant in light of the earlier discussion about whether HIP-80 or HIP-81 protect against adversarial subDAOs. HIP-81 has additional protection because it doesn’t have the square root in the V factor. But the square root of the V factor has advantages too.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:08 PM
A scam subdao is going to eat the cost of 100k devices and try to get ahead on not moving data? lol
16:09
The logistics don't make any sense
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
A scam subdao is going to eat the cost of 100k devices and try to get ahead on not moving data? lol
If you want to discuss scam subDAOs, please read the upscroll. Max has made arguments that scam subDAOs pose a significant danger. I don’t share that view, because I believe veHNT governance would vote to eject them. But that isn’t a settled argument.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If you suggest taking a fourth root of the DC Burn, that will create poor incentives to build out DC Burn.
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 4:10 PM
Onboarding burn
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
A scam subdao is going to eat the cost of 100k devices and try to get ahead on not moving data? lol
Here my point was just that the A factor is not a protection against scam subDAOs.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If you want to discuss scam subDAOs, please read the upscroll. Max has made arguments that scam subDAOs pose a significant danger. I don’t share that view, because I believe veHNT governance would vote to eject them. But that isn’t a settled argument.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:10 PM
Man, I've been reading for hours as ya'll have debated. I'm aware. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Onboarding burn
I think I don’t understand. Could you write out the Score you are proposing?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 4:11 PM
It’s not perfect but $100,000 is a bigger barrier than $500
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Man, I've been reading for hours as ya'll have debated. I'm aware. 🙂
Sorry. 😄 I probably misunderstood your comment.
🍻 2
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Here my point was just that the A factor is not a protection against scam subDAOs.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:11 PM
For a scam dao to onboard enough devices for A to not matter anymore isn't feasible. They'd never make their money back.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 4:12 PM
I think we’re in a good spot. How does everyone feel about walking away for a bit
🤝 2
16:13
The problem with phones is even when I touch grass I still don’t get away
😅 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
It’s not perfect but $100,000 is a bigger barrier than $500
Well, on that point, to get an A factor of 10, you only need $10,000. Even I have $10,000. And $500 still gets you an A factor of 4.8, still only 14x less than the A factor of IOT. It’s just not much of a barrier to entry.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I think we’re in a good spot. How does everyone feel about walking away for a bit
Now this sounds like a good idea. It’s past my bedtime again anyway.
😴 1
🙂 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 4:14 PM
Just to be clear, my proposal is to fix the A before subDAO 3 but not before migration
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Just to be clear, my proposal is to fix the A before subDAO 3 but not before migration
I think let’s just do lots more work before we decide how to take on subDAO 3. So I’m in agreement with that.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, on that point, to get an A factor of 10, you only need $10,000. Even I have $10,000. And $500 still gets you an A factor of 4.8, still only 14x less than the A factor of IOT. It’s just not much of a barrier to entry.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:15 PM
I think you're forgetting the costs of the whole process of getting a device made and approved. 🙂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/13/2023 4:15 PM
Idk if HIP-19 applies
😬 1
Avatar
I see lots of rabbit holes all around. I propose we do not get into HIP-19 at this time.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Idk if HIP-19 applies
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:17 PM
If it doesn't, we've got much bigger problems. 😅
Avatar
I hereby declare HIP-19 off-topic for this channel! 😵
😄 1
🙌 1
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/13/2023 4:18 PM
Ok, shutting up now so that Ferebee can get some sleep and Max can go back to touching grass. 😉
😂 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If you want to discuss scam subDAOs, please read the upscroll. Max has made arguments that scam subDAOs pose a significant danger. I don’t share that view, because I believe veHNT governance would vote to eject them. But that isn’t a settled argument.
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/14/2023 12:09 AM
I don't look at it as a scam, just funding for daos without any requirement to reach burn. You pay a Dao to join + work + use the helium name
00:11
Should be the other way round, they pay to lock vehnt in the treasury, eg require x locked up for y, and that gets them some basic earnings, not just handed to them with no requirements to burn
👆 1
💯 1
00:12
If they mess about, slash em, otherwise they could use those basic funds to just scam dc burn or take too long without consequences
👆 1
💯 1
Avatar
It’s an interesting question how to guard against scam subDAOs. As we’ve seen in yesterday’s discussion, the formula given in HIP-80 allows a scam subDAO to obtain a certain portion of HNT emissions pre-revenue. Due to the Floor factor, which HIP-80 sets to 7, equivalent to $1,470 implied DC Burn per month, any subDAO with zero revenue (which includes MOBILE initially) receives significant emissions. HIP-81 doesn’t provide this Floor to its DC Burn factor, and uses the A factor, which considers total onboarding fees, as an additional way to distinguish “useless” subDAOs from ones with significant hardware investment. However, the A factor, due to the fourth root applied, does not have a strong influence. And the D factor of DC Burn, due to its square root, is easily gamed. A scam subDAO could easily burn some amount of DC for true Data Transfer, which would affect its contribution under HIP-81, and could easily raise its contribution under HIP-80 above the Floor, simply by burning more than $1,470/month, at which point the Floor becomes irrelevant. For comparison with yesterday’s discussion, here is a model of a scam subDAO that uses 250 “Hotspots” at $40 onboarding each ($10,000 total outlay), and burns $5,000/month in fake or real Data Transfer payments.
02:50
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I don't look at it as a scam, just funding for daos without any requirement to reach burn. You pay a Dao to join + work + use the helium name
On balance, neither HIP-80 nor HIP-81 provide good protection against scam subDAOs. I think we will need to consider additional protections in the HIP that will need to be written to allow any additional subDAO to join, whether it’s Mappers or WiFi Dabba.
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:04 AM
Fake or real data does it matter if it's burning hnt for DC? If it's burning then it's contributing in my eyes . The problem comes with handing out "hnt" for nothing
👆 2
💯 1
facepalm 1
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
Fake or real data does it matter if it's burning hnt for DC? If it's burning then it's contributing in my eyes . The problem comes with handing out "hnt" for nothing
The formula introduced in HIP-51, used unchanged in HIP-81, and modified in HIP-80, uses the square root of DC Burn in the D factor. This means that small amounts of DC Burn give the subDAO a disproportionately large share of emissions. (For example, to receive 10x the emissions, you have to burn 100x the DC.)
03:08
This leaves us vulnerable to “bad” subDAOs that aren’t actually trying to grow their usage.
Avatar
There remains a significant difference between doing nothing and getting nothing and doing nothing and getting $1500’s worth
👆 1
💯 2
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:11 AM
But in hip 80 my understanding is we could gain a subDAO that just takes with 0 give . I'm watching/watched some other projects that are trying to capitalise on helium . Given the chance I'm sure they would love some free hnt each month . Would give them some other income aside from licence sales and could be used to "legitimise" Them
👆 1
Avatar
At this point, one check and balance is quite simply: capcom loves LoRa and is excited about building “his very own” worldwide IOT network that rules the world. I mean that quite seriously. And another is that Nova, along with their investor, Deutsche Telekom, wants Helium Mobile to be a success, and to point the way towards a new paradigm of building out 5G coverage. A different subDAO, such as WiFi Dabba, might have motivations that are less aligned.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
At this point, one check and balance is quite simply: capcom loves LoRa and is excited about building “his very own” worldwide IOT network that rules the world. I mean that quite seriously. And another is that Nova, along with their investor, Deutsche Telekom, wants Helium Mobile to be a success, and to point the way towards a new paradigm of building out 5G coverage. A different subDAO, such as WiFi Dabba, might have motivations that are less aligned.
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:11 AM
Strongly disagree iv said for over a year mobile is caps new baby
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
Strongly disagree iv said for over a year mobile is caps new baby
Honestly, if that is his true, secret plan, I think neither HIP-80 nor HIP-81 can save IOT.
Avatar
Point is that doing nothing right now earns you 12-ish % of HNT with HIP80 and sub 2% with HIP81. It’s a significant difference
👆 3
💯 2
03:15
That you can find situations in which 80 and 81 both fail to protect the helium dao doesn’t mean they’re equal.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
There remains a significant difference between doing nothing and getting nothing and doing nothing and getting $1500’s worth
That’s true. I view that as a philosophical issue more than a practical issue. However, if the Floor parameter of 7 for post-IOT networks proves to be a threat in the context of a future subDAO, it’s comparatively simple to set it lower for the new subDAO in the future subDAO HIP. If MOBILE is making any revenue at that point, it might be uncontroversial to set Floor back to 1 for all new subDAOs including MOBILE. Honestly, if MOBILE doesn’t start making revenue within some reasonable timeframe, we’re all fucked anyway.
03:17
It’s fairly easy to build consensus that a new, upstart network should get less. Building consensus that it should get more is generally much more difficult.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s true. I view that as a philosophical issue more than a practical issue. However, if the Floor parameter of 7 for post-IOT networks proves to be a threat in the context of a future subDAO, it’s comparatively simple to set it lower for the new subDAO in the future subDAO HIP. If MOBILE is making any revenue at that point, it might be uncontroversial to set Floor back to 1 for all new subDAOs including MOBILE. Honestly, if MOBILE doesn’t start making revenue within some reasonable timeframe, we’re all fucked anyway.
Like I’ve said all along, I don’t view this “we’ll continually twist knobs to suit some subset of subDAOs” is a viable strategy
03:19
The likely consequences of that is that subDAOs leave, you can’t build a project on continuously changing tokenomics on the DAO level. Especially when you’re large enough to stand on your own feet by then it is easy to then just say kthxbye.
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s true. I view that as a philosophical issue more than a practical issue. However, if the Floor parameter of 7 for post-IOT networks proves to be a threat in the context of a future subDAO, it’s comparatively simple to set it lower for the new subDAO in the future subDAO HIP. If MOBILE is making any revenue at that point, it might be uncontroversial to set Floor back to 1 for all new subDAOs including MOBILE. Honestly, if MOBILE doesn’t start making revenue within some reasonable timeframe, we’re all fucked anyway.
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:21 AM
Honestly, if MOBILE doesn’t start making revenue within some reasonable timeframe, we’re all fucked anyway. why cause lorawan cant stand on its own 2 feet . it needs mobile to prop it up ?
facepalm 1
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Like I’ve said all along, I don’t view this “we’ll continually twist knobs to suit some subset of subDAOs” is a viable strategy
As Max has said, we all don’t know yet what the correct strategy is. He has stated his view that as a result, we should change as little as possible now vs. HIP-51, because change is dangerous. That’s a valid position. My position is that we should try to find the best solution now that we can, which we may need to adjust later. Honestly I think the square root of veHNT is a more substantive difference between HIP-80 and HIP-81 than the Floor parameter of HIP-80. The square root was proposed by JMF, one of the authors of HIP-51. It wasn’t my idea at all, but he convinced me that it’s a good idea. As I’ve said before, gaming the DC Burn factor with true DC Burn, in order to achieve $1,500/month or more, which obviates the Floor parameter anyway, is not difficult. In fact, you yourself mentioned how MOBILE operators will probably start burning significant DC once Helium Mobile is live.
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
Honestly, if MOBILE doesn’t start making revenue within some reasonable timeframe, we’re all fucked anyway. why cause lorawan cant stand on its own 2 feet . it needs mobile to prop it up ?
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/14/2023 3:22 AM
if i can burn 5m dc and move the marker, we need mobile, not that iot isnt growing, just at a slower pace of growth, i wouldnt say its propping it up, more that if we want to get to revenue faster, we need mobile
Avatar
Avatar
nosmaster89
Honestly, if MOBILE doesn’t start making revenue within some reasonable timeframe, we’re all fucked anyway. why cause lorawan cant stand on its own 2 feet . it needs mobile to prop it up ?
Honestly, yes. The value of HNT as a utility token is determined in the medium term by the level of DC Burn we can achieve, and while IOT is making good progress, it will probably be years before it can become self-supporting. Otherwise, HIP-51 itself would have been unnecessary, and we could have just started MOBILE as a separate project to begin with. The central tenet of Helium is that the whole can be larger than the sum of the parts.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
if i can burn 5m dc and move the marker, we need mobile, not that iot isnt growing, just at a slower pace of growth, i wouldnt say its propping it up, more that if we want to get to revenue faster, we need mobile
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:24 AM
we know iot is slow. we know coverage blew up before usage was ready. regardless iot stand in its own merit and can survive with or without mobile. cbrs is such a small fraction of the current possibility of the network. i think it would be fine without mobile
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/14/2023 3:25 AM
it wont keep the lights on at this pace tho, we have to be realistic, some support from other sources of burn really helps right now
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Honestly, yes. The value of HNT as a utility token is determined in the medium term by the level of DC Burn we can achieve, and while IOT is making good progress, it will probably be years before it can become self-supporting. Otherwise, HIP-51 itself would have been unnecessary, and we could have just started MOBILE as a separate project to begin with. The central tenet of Helium is that the whole can be larger than the sum of the parts.
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:25 AM
ill be honest i wish MOBILE created as a seperate entity . and to be fair leaving the helium L1 theres no reason they have to be mixed
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/14/2023 3:26 AM
im a big beliver IOT will do better when we pay for "useful" (to be defined) coverage over all.
💯 3
Avatar
It can't be denied that the prospect of having MOBILE in the same structure has brought positive things for IOT (way back when).
Avatar
Avatar
groot
The likely consequences of that is that subDAOs leave, you can’t build a project on continuously changing tokenomics on the DAO level. Especially when you’re large enough to stand on your own feet by then it is easy to then just say kthxbye.
That is a whole other question. I probably read too much into Tushar’s tweet that Max posted here previously, but it immediately brought that exact question to mind when I read it. https://twitter.com/TusharJain_/status/1646239272221933568
Any L2 with its own token and decentralized governance will eventually vote to become an L1. Token holders are greedy and the market has shown that L1s get a significant valuation premium.
03:27
We need to watch that carefully, which includes being careful how much governance we give subDAOs.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
It can't be denied that the prospect of having MOBILE in the same structure has brought positive things for IOT (way back when).
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:27 AM
i dont see it ill be honest. theres a finite amount of esims in the usa, then theres a finite amount of people that will be in range and pay for the network usage. lorawan can have billions of sensors in the end (edited)
Avatar
I'm not so sure about the floor because when a subDAO has 3 hotspots onboarded those 3 hotspots would share the 12% between the 3 of them.
Avatar
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:28 AM
but im off topic abit mobile is here to stay 😄
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
We need to watch that carefully, which includes being careful how much governance we give subDAOs.
You can't stop them from leaving, that's impossible to enforce on the DAO level and I agree it will become a possible issue in the future.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I'm not so sure about the floor because when a subDAO has 3 hotspots onboarded those 3 hotspots would share the 12% between the 3 of them.
That’s a valid point. I would argue that if a subDAO with 3 Hotspot applies to join the Helium DAO, we might say, build out your network a bit and come back again later.
👍 1
Avatar
I believe any system being introduced should allow any such loop hole.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s a valid point. I would argue that if a subDAO with 3 Hotspot applies to join the Helium DAO, we might say, build out your network a bit and come back again later.
IOT started with 30, MOBILE is going to start with 0. The problem with that approach, as I see it, is that the applicant will then say "well, we've figured it out on our own now, have fun with your DAO" (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
riobah
I believe any system being introduced should allow any such loop hole.
It should include mechanisms to prevent those too
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s a valid point. I would argue that if a subDAO with 3 Hotspot applies to join the Helium DAO, we might say, build out your network a bit and come back again later.
I'm not saying I know all details, but addressing the problems in this way does not sound like the right approach
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You can't stop them from leaving, that's impossible to enforce on the DAO level and I agree it will become a possible issue in the future.
As a practical matter, as long as Foundation or Nova run the offchain infrastructure for MOBILE, and have the MVNO contracts with T-Mobile (something that Pollen would have probably found attractive, but never even hinted at), holders of HNT and HST have an interest in making it easy for MOBILE Hotspot operators to stay in Helium DAO, and hard for them to leave. So it’s not just an abstract issue.
Avatar
It's also not just the MOBILE floor I'm doubtful about, the IOT floor essentially signals the IOT subDAO to sit on their behinds for the coming months since it won't help them anyway.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
As a practical matter, as long as Foundation or Nova run the offchain infrastructure for MOBILE, and have the MVNO contracts with T-Mobile (something that Pollen would have probably found attractive, but never even hinted at), holders of HNT and HST have an interest in making it easy for MOBILE Hotspot operators to stay in Helium DAO, and hard for them to leave. So it’s not just an abstract issue.
If I hold all the veDNT I make the decisions, or do you think it's hard to run the offchain infra?
03:34
(btw, yes it is hard but given enough financial incentive totally worth it).
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
As a practical matter, as long as Foundation or Nova run the offchain infrastructure for MOBILE, and have the MVNO contracts with T-Mobile (something that Pollen would have probably found attractive, but never even hinted at), holders of HNT and HST have an interest in making it easy for MOBILE Hotspot operators to stay in Helium DAO, and hard for them to leave. So it’s not just an abstract issue.
nosmaster89 04/14/2023 3:34 AM
isnt the point that nova/foundation DONT run the offchain infrastructure in the future we have been told they dont want that , we are told we will be able to run it our selves at some point in honor of decentrilisation
Avatar
Avatar
groot
IOT started with 30, MOBILE is going to start with 0. The problem with that approach, as I see it, is that the applicant will then say "well, we've figured it out on our own now, have fun with your DAO" (edited)
MOBILE started already, and has 4,000 or 10,000 Hotspots already, depending on which ones you want to count. The central point of TIPIN is that you get to incentivize your builders with a token that is spontaneously emitted and costs nothing, in itself, to produce. Anybody can do that. However, by joining Helium DAO, your subDAO receives a token that already has an established value in the real world. Whereas, if you start your own project, you have to create the value of your token by some other means. Pollen tried to do that and found it difficult to maintain.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If I hold all the veDNT I make the decisions, or do you think it's hard to run the offchain infra?
Helium has T-Mobile. An alternative project would presumably need to link up with AT&T or Verizon. Yes, I think that would be exceedingly difficult.
Avatar
You should look beyond MOBILE in these discussions though... Take wifi dabba, they already run the infra so can leave whenever they want.
👆 1
03:37
Helium Mobile has T-Mobile*. Helium has a service it provides to Helium Mobile.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That is a whole other question. I probably read too much into Tushar’s tweet that Max posted here previously, but it immediately brought that exact question to mind when I read it. https://twitter.com/TusharJain_/status/1646239272221933568
Not sure to what degree this thought (if correct, let's assume for the sake of the argument, it is) translates to / is applicable to Helium. Next week, Helium isn't a blockchain any more and the subDAOs for sure aren't L2 blockchains. This notwithstanding, it is of course very reasonable to watch what subDAOs bring to Helium and on the other hand what advantages being a Helium subDAO brings to a token incentivized physical infrastructure project. - With regard to that, one thing I am concerned is the 15% share of HNT going to HST holders (Not saying the founders don't deserve a share, but many years down the line, that might be too high a tax. Look at the Solana phone: One reason to build it was the app-store fees of Apple being deemed too high). - Another thing is: part of the success story/what makes being part of Helium today attractive is the fact that we live in a phase of Helium during which the token values can be expected to rise significantly. While I am not being able to put this sufficiently good into words today, I expect we will one day enter a phase where token values will stay comparatively stable, and because of this, subDAOs will think about the economics of whether to be a part of Helium or being independent differently than today - and the Helium DAO will need to do so, too. (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
I think we have consensus here that there are significant questions about whether and how Helium DAO on the one hand can profit from future subDAOs, or whether they might be detrimental, and how on the other hand future subDAOs can profit from Helium DAO, or whether Helium DAO would be a drag on them instead. There are definitely ways a subDAO can game Helium DAO, both under HIP-80 and under HIP-81, and we will need to look closely at these when considering whether to invite/let in a new subDAO. And there are definitely reasons why a potential subDAO might prefer to go out on its own, or an existing subDAO might want to leave. I think these questions are ultimately out of scope for both HIP-80 and HIP-81.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/14/2023 3:51 AM
Not at all it's why I chose 81 , counting burn rather than giving a minimum
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think we have consensus here that there are significant questions about whether and how Helium DAO on the one hand can profit from future subDAOs, or whether they might be detrimental, and how on the other hand future subDAOs can profit from Helium DAO, or whether Helium DAO would be a drag on them instead. There are definitely ways a subDAO can game Helium DAO, both under HIP-80 and under HIP-81, and we will need to look closely at these when considering whether to invite/let in a new subDAO. And there are definitely reasons why a potential subDAO might prefer to go out on its own, or an existing subDAO might want to leave. I think these questions are ultimately out of scope for both HIP-80 and HIP-81.
Exactly. There’s so much common ground between the 80 and 81 camps, that I think the best approach is to take the time, build a consensus, and work out a solution that both camps agree with. Almost everyone agrees that the current HIP 51 needs work, so let’s fix it together. Not having a fix before the migration isn’t ideal, but changing something now and then having to start working on changing again is definitely worse. So let’s take the time to find out the best solution possible.
Avatar
I think both approaches leave significant gaming vectors. In my view, HIP-80 provides a reasonable baseline that supports the growth of both IOT and MOBILE. HIP-81 is an alternative approach. While I favor HIP-80, obviously, I think it’s better to launch with either than with an unmodified HIP-51. Reasonable minds can differ on whether HIP-80 or HIP-81 provides the better foundation for the development of IOT and MOBILE. When it comes to future subDAOs, we have the competing issues of how to attract subDAOs into Helium, and how to protect Helium from adversarial subDAOs. Neither HIP-80 nor HIP-81 fully answers these questions. If we pass either HIP-80 or HIP-81, we will still have leeway to pass modifications in the future. In particular, a good proposal that limits “unjust” rewards for future subDAOs would be in the interest of both camps, IOT and MOBILE.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That is a whole other question. I probably read too much into Tushar’s tweet that Max posted here previously, but it immediately brought that exact question to mind when I read it. https://twitter.com/TusharJain_/status/1646239272221933568
This is an intriguing statement. As L2s come on board, and benefit from Helium’s L1, . . . We need a preventative measure in place to stop abuse. Can’t and shouldn’t stop an L2 from governing themselves as they see fit. But if they do leave the Helium L1 ecosystem, perhaps we design something that benefits the ecosystem as a whole should they choose to do so. (edited)
Avatar
I look forward to your contributions to this thought process in future discussions. 😅
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I look forward to your contributions to this thought process in future discussions. 😅
I need to noodle this for a while. I don’t see a reason to worry about this for the next few years, but many years afterwards???
04:43
But then again, this is crypto. Lol
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
I need to noodle this for a while. I don’t see a reason to worry about this for the next few years, but many years afterwards???
Oh, I’d go ahead and worry about it for 2024 at the latest, which is when the next Bitcoin halvening would traditionally start to introduce new market dynamics. Just maybe not right now.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Oh, I’d go ahead and worry about it for 2024 at the latest, which is when the next Bitcoin halvening would traditionally start to introduce new market dynamics. Just maybe not right now.
Oh, the public outcry that would occur when people lock up for 48 months and then 1.5 years later, it’s announced that sorry, we are leaving. I don’t see it (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
if i can burn 5m dc and move the marker, we need mobile, not that iot isnt growing, just at a slower pace of growth, i wouldnt say its propping it up, more that if we want to get to revenue faster, we need mobile
yes the way I view it, mobile growth will be easier and generate more but it is a already crowded space but there is still lots of low hanging fruit, which we should take advantage of. but we also want to safeguard IOT to make sure it is given a chance to get to its full potential, I actually think that IOT may potentially have more net earnings potential, it is just going to take a long time
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/14/2023 5:49 AM
And that's why I voted 81, 80 takes an instant chunk out of rewards for a network that should pump data almost right away, 80 suggests they don't pay onboarding, it's giving mobile a free ride and earnings without burn, when mobile shouldn't have issue burning data (edited)
👆 3
💯 2
05:50
Talking a clause for <1 month or two that can be abused by any following subdao
05:51
If we have 2 new daos for example that's an instant chunk out of iot for no burn
05:52
WiFi Dao , mappers dao , VPN Dao, file Dao, suddenly the pie for iot shrinks quite a bit, without burn (edited)
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Talking a clause for <1 month or two that can be abused by any following subdao
originally I looked at this as a method for getting new networks to join and realized we should just do it with all of them, but yes the mobile community is getting very fatigued and we are seeing the first runners, now I know we shouldn't just cater to them but we are just one hiccup / fud event from a more major failure which at this point would severely hamper growth I my self have paused deployments to small towns now with the uncertainty surrounding locked and unlocked hexes, I want this to succeed HIP 80 does that. HIP 81 is a band aid, it also sneaks some other stuff in for people not reading the full content of it, also that phase 2 of this will require that "radios" will need to burn for onboarding as well, this will be disastrous esp the numbers being put forward... (edited)
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
originally I looked at this as a method for getting new networks to join and realized we should just do it with all of them, but yes the mobile community is getting very fatigued and we are seeing the first runners, now I know we shouldn't just cater to them but we are just one hiccup / fud event from a more major failure which at this point would severely hamper growth I my self have paused deployments to small towns now with the uncertainty surrounding locked and unlocked hexes, I want this to succeed HIP 80 does that. HIP 81 is a band aid, it also sneaks some other stuff in for people not reading the full content of it, also that phase 2 of this will require that "radios" will need to burn for onboarding as well, this will be disastrous esp the numbers being put forward... (edited)
What is sneaked in?
06:12
total number of devices: not true radio onboards: is a suggestion and left up to the MOBILE subDAO ironically claiming fud events are dangerous while spreading fud yourself.
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
groot
total number of devices: not true radio onboards: is a suggestion and left up to the MOBILE subDAO ironically claiming fud events are dangerous while spreading fud yourself.
well I myself am uncertain, they literally said that I might have a way to use radios I installed that is the highest level and its coming straight from cap I had a good chat with Boris about it but I cant spend 200k without knowing that I might not have any avenue to monetize for the foreseeable future, hence its just a pause till its sorted out
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
well I myself am uncertain, they literally said that I might have a way to use radios I installed that is the highest level and its coming straight from cap I had a good chat with Boris about it but I cant spend 200k without knowing that I might not have any avenue to monetize for the foreseeable future, hence its just a pause till its sorted out
Sure, skip the point. Just stop spreading lies for a second.
Avatar
lies?
Avatar
Yea the part you conveniently edited out. Second lie is still in, nothing in HIP81 says radios must be onboarded, it leaves it up to the subDAO. Also, cap didn't write HIP81 so what you hear from him is not relevant to HIP81.
Avatar
im not lying about anything? maybe I get things wrong but I never lie on purpose max has been pushing that radios get onboarded for a while now that is truely his next mission
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
im not lying about anything? maybe I get things wrong but I never lie on purpose max has been pushing that radios get onboarded for a while now that is truely his next mission
so? that's not phase 2 of hip81.
06:21
You're continuously spreading falsehoods and I'd really like it if you'd stop.
06:22
If you say you aren't doing it intentionally, start educating yourself before shouting from the tower then.
Avatar
ok so it will be called a mip more than likely the point is he wants his flywheel effect, both hip 81 and a future mip (phase 2) will do that
Avatar
It literally has nothing to do with hip81
Avatar
Avatar
groot
If you say you aren't doing it intentionally, start educating yourself before shouting from the tower then.
I thought we are all equal?
Avatar
I don't see what equality has to do with it?
06:23
False information is false information, no matter who says it, so yea we're all equal here.
💯 1
Avatar
you said I im in a tower?
06:24
there is nothing false or immaterial to what I am saying.
Avatar
huh? shouting from a tower, apparently the correct saying is shouting from a rooftop, whoopdiedoo
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
there is nothing false or immaterial to what I am saying.
there is objectively false information as shown here: https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1096422798018216046 not going to continue arguing over it either, just stop spreading lies.
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/14/2023 6:26 AM
06:27
Do better.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Click to see attachment 🖼️
why do you think this is helpful?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
why do you think this is helpful?
EdB-charlietango 04/14/2023 6:28 AM
Just thought it might open some eyes. 🙂
Avatar
I think i have been called a liar more times in this chat room than I have in my entire life, I just find it as character assignation attempt i will fight vigorously to defend myself
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Just thought it might open some eyes. 🙂
they had a E3 logo like that a long time ago
06:29
but yes we have different perspectives esp we find our selves in a bipolar ecosystem
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I think i have been called a liar more times in this chat room than I have in my entire life, I just find it as character assignation attempt i will fight vigorously to defend myself
EdB-charlietango 04/14/2023 6:29 AM
If someone calls you a liar, it's usually way past any point of convincing. Let your work speak for itself and your reputation. Not worth engaging.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Just thought it might open some eyes. 🙂
why would it open my eyes if someone says "X is in HIP81" while it isn't?
👆 1
06:30
objectively false.
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
If someone calls you a liar, it's usually way past any point of convincing. Let your work speak for itself and your reputation. Not worth engaging.
I guess im just from a different time i would rather confront problems but in the era of trolls that's not always possible. I just want to have substantive debate of what the objective facts and the extrapolation of them to their conclusion.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I guess im just from a different time i would rather confront problems but in the era of trolls that's not always possible. I just want to have substantive debate of what the objective facts and the extrapolation of them to their conclusion.
should I post the picture where you slander Max or do you?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
should I post the picture where you slander Max or do you?
go ahead, its just an opinion
Avatar
I'm glad you don't deny doing it, that's at least something.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
I'm glad you don't deny doing it, that's at least something.
i never denied it in fact I publicly apologized in here and on telegram
Avatar
the hypocrisy of talking about character assassination after that is next level (edited)
👆 2
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/14/2023 6:37 AM
Behavior is debatable. A document is debatable. Assumptions of character and identity are just mechanisms we've made up to reinforce our own beliefs, perhaps because of trauma or cultural triggers. It's perfectly natural for our reptilian brains to manifest, however we can choose to engage critically and learn how to build alignment and change perspectives.
Avatar
Getting a bit off topic here
👍🏻 4
06:38
Not taking sides, but the personal feuds are making anyone looking for discussion on the HIP itself nearly impossible to find (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Not taking sides, but the personal feuds are making anyone looking for discussion on the HIP itself nearly impossible to find (edited)
it's not a personal feud, someone is spreading falsehoods so I responded.
👍 3
👆 2
Avatar
all the same, let’s just get back to the HIP
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
all the same, let’s just get back to the HIP
it was a falsehood about the HIP so pretty on topic.
Avatar
removing that clown emoji fyi (edited)
💯 1
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/14/2023 6:44 AM
If it's chosen to post publically, I'll respond publically. I think it's a waste of everyone's time to try character assassinations. So I'm going to engage until it goes away. Mods shouldn't have to babysit. And I shouldn't either. Yet we're here...and so I call it out. If we don't deal with it now... it will always simmer. And assumptions will set to personal facts...which is a fools errand. Sorry for total 🦝 , but am personally tired of the battles.
🫂 1
Avatar
Avatar
EdB-charlietango
Behavior is debatable. A document is debatable. Assumptions of character and identity are just mechanisms we've made up to reinforce our own beliefs, perhaps because of trauma or cultural triggers. It's perfectly natural for our reptilian brains to manifest, however we can choose to engage critically and learn how to build alignment and change perspectives.
thank you, yes in the long and short of it i made a mistake, i apologized as i should have and moved on, that doesn't absolve anyone of there own motivations. we all have them i have been vocal about mine, I am heavily involved in mobile, I am building the network, and I want it to have the best chance to succeed, hip 80 gives a bigger share to mobile day 1 -60. in exchange mobile will give IOT a large data burn score and getting rid of the A part of the VDA score. this will give IOT a 4 year runway to get off the ground, there are many factors that have led us to this conclusion and we have simulated 1000's of scenarios and found the largest amount of them result in healthy MOBILE and IOT networks at the end of those 4 years.
🙏 2
Avatar
Literally 1000’s?
😂 3
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Literally 1000’s?
well I could technically say millions if you count line graphs but just playing with all sorts of numbers and the few iterations of models as well it was a very large number
Avatar
I wouldn’t count lines of a graph uniquely
06:51
But glad to see simulations being done!
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I wouldn’t count lines of a graph uniquely
darn, I was just about to up the step size of my graph 😦
06:52
does a higher dpi count too? Troll
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
But glad to see simulations being done!
lol yes did you think we were playing darts and came up with 40 and 7?
Avatar
I’ll accept 640x480 graphs only 🔍
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
I’ll accept 640x480 graphs only 🔍
i'll make 'm special, just for you
😋 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
lol yes did you think we were playing darts and came up with 40 and 7?
You said “1000’s” and “few” so I honestly wasn’t sure
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
You said “1000’s” and “few” so I honestly wasn’t sure
when I said "few" that was model types then 1000s of scenarios based on those calculations
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
thank you, yes in the long and short of it i made a mistake, i apologized as i should have and moved on, that doesn't absolve anyone of there own motivations. we all have them i have been vocal about mine, I am heavily involved in mobile, I am building the network, and I want it to have the best chance to succeed, hip 80 gives a bigger share to mobile day 1 -60. in exchange mobile will give IOT a large data burn score and getting rid of the A part of the VDA score. this will give IOT a 4 year runway to get off the ground, there are many factors that have led us to this conclusion and we have simulated 1000's of scenarios and found the largest amount of them result in healthy MOBILE and IOT networks at the end of those 4 years.
EngineerAiTool 04/14/2023 6:56 AM
It would be great to check those simulations, it will definitely help people decide how to vote
Avatar
Avatar
EngineerAiTool
It would be great to check those simulations, it will definitely help people decide how to vote
Sheet1 Emission to miners (HNT),55,890 subDAO Network Data Transfer and Device Count in Epoch X LoRaWAN DC burned (in USD),$500.00,5G DC burned (in USD),$0.00,WiFi DC burned (in USD),$1,000.00,<--- 5g will have 0 data till Helium mobile launches LoRaWAN Devices (#),400,000,5G Devices,3,700,WiFi ...
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
thank you, yes in the long and short of it i made a mistake, i apologized as i should have and moved on, that doesn't absolve anyone of there own motivations. we all have them i have been vocal about mine, I am heavily involved in mobile, I am building the network, and I want it to have the best chance to succeed, hip 80 gives a bigger share to mobile day 1 -60. in exchange mobile will give IOT a large data burn score and getting rid of the A part of the VDA score. this will give IOT a 4 year runway to get off the ground, there are many factors that have led us to this conclusion and we have simulated 1000's of scenarios and found the largest amount of them result in healthy MOBILE and IOT networks at the end of those 4 years.
What happens on Day 61?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
What happens on Day 61?
thats just a best guess on helium mobile going live could be longer could be shorter
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
originally I looked at this as a method for getting new networks to join and realized we should just do it with all of them, but yes the mobile community is getting very fatigued and we are seeing the first runners, now I know we shouldn't just cater to them but we are just one hiccup / fud event from a more major failure which at this point would severely hamper growth I my self have paused deployments to small towns now with the uncertainty surrounding locked and unlocked hexes, I want this to succeed HIP 80 does that. HIP 81 is a band aid, it also sneaks some other stuff in for people not reading the full content of it, also that phase 2 of this will require that "radios" will need to burn for onboarding as well, this will be disastrous esp the numbers being put forward... (edited)
Can we have an example of a single event that brings this crashing down? This whole post just reinforces my belief that you have become impatient about mobile and your investment; and you’re putting forth a HIP to cover your own ass. Dude, relax. Helium Mobile is coming. (edited)
Avatar
well any regulatory move that might hinder mobile launching
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
thats just a best guess on helium mobile going live could be longer could be shorter
We can wait 90 days for them. No PoC rewards are necessary. Patience. We will be rewarded for the efforts.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Can we have an example of a single event that brings this crashing down? This whole post just reinforces my belief that you have become impatient about mobile and your investment; and you’re putting forth a HIP to cover your own ass. Dude, relax. Helium Mobile is coming. (edited)
technical problems that might be viewed as unlikely to over come short falls, or just bad subscriber counts might be bad, also major network instabilty there are quite a few that aren't impossible I do view them as unlikely, but also everyone finding out they owe 10% tax for onboarding radios is going to be a shock to the system
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
well any regulatory move that might hinder mobile launching
Dude. Any regulatory thing will just be a delay. DT is an investor and wants us to succeed. Tmobile has us as a customer, they want us succeed. Every other MVNO wants us to succeed for their own good as well. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Dude. Any regulatory thing will just be a delay. DT is an investor and wants us to succeed. Tmobile has us as a customer, they want us succeed. Every other MVNO wants us to succeed for their own good as well. (edited)
well it might come against crypto in general the US isnt fostering a good environment IMO we are one more Elizabeth Warren away from potential disaster
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Dude. Any regulatory thing will just be a delay. DT is an investor and wants us to succeed. Tmobile has us as a customer, they want us succeed. Every other MVNO wants us to succeed for their own good as well. (edited)
DT?
Avatar
You do not need tip the apple cart. HIP 51 works quite well. Tiny nuance fixes is all it needs.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
DT?
This worries me some more. Deutsche Telecom.
Avatar
what worries you?
Avatar
That you dont know that.
09:37
Patience my man.
Avatar
DT is essentially Tmo...
Avatar
Your impatience is helping this HIP get yes votes and I am getting worried that it is going to screw up the project.
Avatar
I havent seen that they have HNT or HST do they?
facepalm 1
Avatar
HIP80 is the first HIP that I am concerned about the outcome. Every other HIP, whether I felt strongly or not about one outcome, I was always fine with the other outcome.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
HIP80 is the first HIP that I am concerned about the outcome. Every other HIP, whether I felt strongly or not about one outcome, I was always fine with the other outcome.
i am sorry you feel that way but I view HIP 80 as an improvement to VDA and will get rid of gutterball scenarios \
👎 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
i am sorry you feel that way but I view HIP 80 as an improvement to VDA and will get rid of gutterball scenarios \
The only probable gutter ball scenario is if someone went off half-cocked, made some bold assumptions, invested a lot, ignored all the talk about onboarding fees not being covered, and then found some potential rules to be counter to those bold assumptions. This HIP does a great job of helping that scenario. The likelihood of a gutter ball for Mobile is so slim. We all owe the onboarding fees; we have known that nearly the entire time. Just chill please. I think this HIP is going to hurt you more than it might help. Yes its passing will help you avoid a cost of onboarding fees you didn't cover yet; there is that benefit. This HIP is going to limit your upside if Mobile does well; and that upside is multiples larger than covering the fees you (we) didn't pay yet. Just relax; your bold assumptions will work out just fine.
💯 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/14/2023 9:54 AM
I think the point Keith and others are making is that this HIP rushed through a ton of changes that aren’t well thought out and have a ton of security concerns. They are well intentioned but only thinking of the best case scenarios.
09:58
Sneaking in the grandfathering in of your personal gateways and radios is no different than another author putting a grant for themselves into a HIP proposal. It’s really easy to combat that argument against the HIP by agreeing to burn the onboard fee on your radios anyway
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
DT is essentially Tmo...
For clarity, it’s the other way around. Deutsche Telekom owns a little over 50% of T-Mobile
10:11
Granted they only hit that recently, like a week ago they eclipsed 50%
Avatar
Also interesting to note: there are markets in which T-mobile operates in which DT owns none of it/sold everything. T-Mobile's structure is hard to understand.
Avatar
“Un-Carrier” never let them guess you’re next move
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Also interesting to note: there are markets in which T-mobile operates in which DT owns none of it/sold everything. T-Mobile's structure is hard to understand.
Max - Just Max 04/14/2023 10:21 AM
Intercompany transactions are really common with multinational corporations
Avatar
@KeithR please expand on how HIP 80 limits the upside for mobile. Is this due to the 'floor' value being given to IOT?
✅ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Another_AKA
@KeithR please expand on how HIP 80 limits the upside for mobile. Is this due to the 'floor' value being given to IOT?
Yes it takes away merit based earning in favor of arbitrary floors.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Yes it takes away merit based earning in favor of arbitrary floors.
I understand that part, but how does HIP 80 limit the upside of any subdao. Just because a % of HNT emissions is guaranteed to the other subdao? That is what we are talking about?
10:29
Just making sure I understand what the limit is.
10:31
A portion (floor) of HNT emissions is being guaranteed to IOT which takes it from what Mobile could 'earn'. That is the upside limit if I am understanding the statement...?
Avatar
Avatar
Another_AKA
@KeithR please expand on how HIP 80 limits the upside for mobile. Is this due to the 'floor' value being given to IOT?
Brainstormer 04/14/2023 10:38 AM
yes
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Another_AKA
I understand that part, but how does HIP 80 limit the upside of any subdao. Just because a % of HNT emissions is guaranteed to the other subdao? That is what we are talking about?
Max - Just Max 04/14/2023 10:39 AM
They all get floors and it’s a fixed pie.
👍 1
🥧 1
🤏 1
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Yes it takes away merit based earning in favor of arbitrary floors.
How long do you think iot would survive if nothing is done? We all know iot uses are still being created right now. Everyone has a cellphone.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
How long do you think iot would survive if nothing is done? We all know iot uses are still being created right now. Everyone has a cellphone.
I don’t know how long it would last. We could always add a floor or provide some sort of assistance when it becomes an issue later too right? I know I’m keeping about 20 IoT radios up for reasons other than the amount of hnt they produce by todays value. If IoT makes less hnt, so that mobile can add more value to the Helium network, that’s ok with me. I think providing assistance from the beginning isn’t the best way to incentivize network adoption for IoT.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
How long do you think iot would survive if nothing is done? We all know iot uses are still being created right now. Everyone has a cellphone.
I believe that there is a sufficient number of people that believe in the long-term prospects of IoT and the need for a network such as ours to make it possible, that the IoT subDAO will survive nearly indefinitely without additional support. I also believe that there is magnitude of more people that have zero concern about how much it is costing them to run their hotspot and they agree that the operator to whom they host believes in it enough to not turn off their hotspot. The only really concern that I have for long-term operation with a languishing reward of tokens and a languishing value of those rewards is if the failure rate of the hotspots turns out to be short; in that case, they wouldn't be replaced at a high rate. That said, as the cost of the device decreases, the bar to replace lowers as well. (edited)
14:09
Anyone that is turning their hotspot off at this point in the game was only here because they thought this was a 'get rich quick' scheme.
💯 4
14:10
Every one of my hosts was given a long speech covering basically two topics; first, and the utmost of importance, was the security of their wallet and the second was that this was a long game and that the expectation was to at least March of 2026. (edited)
14:11
They all said yes.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
I don’t know how long it would last. We could always add a floor or provide some sort of assistance when it becomes an issue later too right? I know I’m keeping about 20 IoT radios up for reasons other than the amount of hnt they produce by todays value. If IoT makes less hnt, so that mobile can add more value to the Helium network, that’s ok with me. I think providing assistance from the beginning isn’t the best way to incentivize network adoption for IoT.
I don’t see the argument of doing it later if we need it stands. It might be too late by then. I don’t look at it in any way of incentivizing network use. It just gives a longer guaranteed timeframe. Most of us hs owners are in it for the Hnt or coin. We have to keep that in mind.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
I don’t see the argument of doing it later if we need it stands. It might be too late by then. I don’t look at it in any way of incentivizing network use. It just gives a longer guaranteed timeframe. Most of us hs owners are in it for the Hnt or coin. We have to keep that in mind.
Like I said, on the IoT side I’ll take a smaller slice of a bigger more valuable pie.
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Like I said, on the IoT side I’ll take a smaller slice of a bigger more valuable pie.
I know the talking point
14:18
There are a lot of factors involved there
Avatar
5g still need the incentives to grow to the size network needed. That’s far from the case with IoT.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
I know the talking point
Brainstormer 04/14/2023 2:19 PM
are you doing mobile deployments?
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Like I said, on the IoT side I’ll take a smaller slice of a bigger more valuable pie.
I wonder if this is the thing people don't get. Mobile's success does not come at a sacrifice to IoT. Yes, at that point, the $iot they will be earning will be redeemable for a smaller amount of $hnt, but the value of that $hnt would be benefitting from the success of Mobile. (edited)
Avatar
I’ll leave my Lora radio on almost* for free. I’m not going to deploy a 5g radio if it’s not worth while. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
I’ll leave my Lora radio on almost* for free. I’m not going to deploy a 5g radio if it’s not worth while. (edited)
It would be nuts to think most people would think like that.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I wonder if this is the thing people don't get. Mobile's success does not come at a sacrifice to IoT. Yes, at that point, the $iot they will be earning will be redeemable for a smaller amount of $hnt, but the value of that $hnt would be benefitting from the success of Mobile. (edited)
But will the value of Hnt overcome the loss of the percentage.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
It would be nuts to think most people would think like that.
It would be nuts if it were true because they are clearly not behaving as such. But it would actually be realistic to believe it for it is true. The cost is so cheap to run an IoT hotspot. Free in fact, if you are a host. Almost free, the cost of electricity and the very random time when the operator calls and says "can you reboot the hotspot next time you go in your garage".
Avatar
Well those other people will still get rewards that will be more valuable than otherwise. The fear is that mobile will be too successful too quickly? If that’s the case I wonder what that would do for HNT value ? 🤔
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
But will the value of Hnt overcome the loss of the percentage.
I think the math is that it is impossible for it not to. I haven't tested it though. I think the only difference from it being true is the speculation part imbued in the $mobile token (in this scenario we are talking about where Mobile takes off and IoT does nothing). (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I think the math is that it is impossible for it not to. I haven't tested it though. I think the only difference from it being true is the speculation part imbued in the $mobile token (in this scenario we are talking about where Mobile takes off and IoT does nothing). (edited)
I think the speculation is the only thing that might save iot in long run. My honest opinion is I don’t think iot is going to do well in a competitive ecosystem. Also the redemption rate of iot is variable as well. We will see. I am feeling ultimately bearish unfortunately.
14:26
For iot
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
But will the value of Hnt overcome the loss of the percentage.
I guess the scenario where Mobile rockets out of the gate and goes bonkers for one year and then we find out that CBRS causes a third arm to grow out of your back and then crashes over night. In that case, retroactively the value goes down but Mobile took a lot of HNT in the process and now that value is lost.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
I think the speculation is the only thing that might save iot in long run. My honest opinion is I don’t think iot is going to do well in a competitive ecosystem. Also the redemption rate of iot is variable as well. We will see. I am feeling ultimately bearish unfortunately.
14:27
If the market is efficient (which over the long time it is), the down flow of tokens should accurately match the upflow of value.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
I think the speculation is the only thing that might save iot in long run. My honest opinion is I don’t think iot is going to do well in a competitive ecosystem. Also the redemption rate of iot is variable as well. We will see. I am feeling ultimately bearish unfortunately.
I somewhat agree. I just don’t believe a floor will help address those problems.
Avatar
In fact, allocating your veHNT according to the down flow of tokens should give the optimal earn of the subDAO tokens as well.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
In fact, allocating your veHNT according to the down flow of tokens should give the optimal earn of the subDAO tokens as well.
I am not that guy. I don’t have enough Hnt for that to be worth it.
Avatar
The 100x and the 3x does actually make it worth (in my opinion obviously).
👆 1
Avatar
Voting power?
Avatar
And if you don't enough HNT, then the benefits afforded via liquidity would seem insignificant to you and thus indicate that staking is the better long-term strategy.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
And if you don't enough HNT, then the benefits afforded via liquidity would seem insignificant to you and thus indicate that staking is the better long-term strategy.
No liquidity is insignificant to me lol
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Voting power?
Of course. In fact oddly enough, the veHNT being required to vote creates a poll tax. A tax that is made smaller by the 100x and 3x bonuses. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
No liquidity is insignificant to me lol
Are you really going in and out with your reportedly "small bag"? It isn't worth the risk with a small bag. [treading too close to inappropriate talk here]
14:34
What worries me is that the floor values of HIP80 create a distortion in the relationship between the down flow of tokens versus the up flow of value to the network.
Avatar
I am not voting for hip 80 or hip 81.
Avatar
This HIP will cause that relationship to be out of balance and stay out of balance for the first four years (when the IoT floor expires) and for the duration that any subDAO produces less than its floor value. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
This HIP will cause that relationship to be out of balance and stay out of balance for the first four years (when the IoT floor expires) and for the duration that any subDAO produces less than its floor value. (edited)
Yes. That part remains to be seen if this hip goes through.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
I am not voting for hip 80 or hip 81.
Well you have brought to light a point that I think is important for people that believe this HIP is a good course of action to be reminded. They will be distorting the flow of value up from the subDAOs into the value of HNT. And not in a good way.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
This HIP will cause that relationship to be out of balance and stay out of balance for the first four years (when the IoT floor expires) and for the duration that any subDAO produces less than its floor value. (edited)
Does the floor go away once subdao matches it?
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Does the floor go away once subdao matches it?
Doesn't go away, the math just ignores it. But if they go below it a few months later, well then the floor kicks in again.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Well you have brought to light a point that I think is important for people that believe this HIP is a good course of action to be reminded. They will be distorting the flow of value up from the subDAOs into the value of HNT. And not in a good way.
That’s what I am here for lol. Since my vote really doesn’t count i like to be involved this way.
👍 1
14:40
Ask my wife I always have something to say. Lol
😂 2
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
That’s what I am here for lol. Since my vote really doesn’t count i like to be involved this way.
Thank you for getting me to manifest one of my concerns of this HIP. Hopefully my writing is clear enough to make the point effective.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Thank you for getting me to manifest one of my concerns of this HIP. Hopefully my writing is clear enough to make the point effective.
Honestly in the long term the economics would shake themselves out. Imo
14:42
Having said that there are always unforeseen consequences in every change.
Avatar
Avatar
Adogg
Honestly in the long term the economics would shake themselves out. Imo
That's the issue. This HIP makes that distortion permanent. Until people get sick of the distortion and make a new HIP to offset it.
14:43
How about we just avoid the issue and vote 'no'?
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
That's the issue. This HIP makes that distortion permanent. Until people get sick of the distortion and make a new HIP to offset it.
So you like hip 51 as is?
14:44
And you have faith that people with huge Hnt bags would come and save the day if iot tanks?
14:45
As is iot will tank
14:45
If mobile takes off
Avatar
@KeithR I’m actually very concerned about the current subDAO utility formula as laid out in hip 51. For me the biggest concern I have with hip 80 not passing is that linear V factor remaining in place. And the reason that’s a concern to me is actually how it combines with two other factors: (1) Linear V factor (2) There’s no consequence/friction/penalty for stakers "redelegating" between subDAO’s (pls correct me if I'm wrong on this) (3) Upon migration, IoT subDAO DNT is going to consistently have a much higher inflation rate than MOBILE SubDAO DNT. To me this combination of 1, 2 ,3 presents an obvious issue in terms of veHNT holders getting stuck in an undesirable Nash equilibrium, which produces a self-reinforcing ‘reverse flywheel effect’. There's a certain relative configuration of A, D, V values combined with the differing DNT inflation rates that can cause a subDAO to get crushed, not because it's not a good/promising project long term, but because the ROI incentive for veHNT holders is to delegate or redelegate towards the treasury that's giving the highest HNT emission ROI. Look up “Stag Hunt Game Theory” for a much simpler example of what I can try to explain in more technically detailed Helium terms if you want. I'm not sure even the sqrt of V will completely solve this issue tbh, but it will certainly help it.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
How about we just avoid the issue and vote 'no'?
I voted no on 80 because I see this as bringing further issues down the road and not actually an improvement. Also I find it extremely ambiguous.
Avatar
That excel spreadsheet that was provided in HIP 51 is not sufficient to model this economic system in terms of its stability over time. You need to at least also account for total HNT in each subDAO treasury, and emission (inflation) rates of the respective DNT tokens and look at what the incentive is for veHNT delegators at various configurations of states to estimate how those may shift V scores, and see if certain configurations produces a runaway effect like I think they might. Please tell me someone has actually done this analysis or that I'm getting some basic assumption wrong here?
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
@KeithR I’m actually very concerned about the current subDAO utility formula as laid out in hip 51. For me the biggest concern I have with hip 80 not passing is that linear V factor remaining in place. And the reason that’s a concern to me is actually how it combines with two other factors: (1) Linear V factor (2) There’s no consequence/friction/penalty for stakers "redelegating" between subDAO’s (pls correct me if I'm wrong on this) (3) Upon migration, IoT subDAO DNT is going to consistently have a much higher inflation rate than MOBILE SubDAO DNT. To me this combination of 1, 2 ,3 presents an obvious issue in terms of veHNT holders getting stuck in an undesirable Nash equilibrium, which produces a self-reinforcing ‘reverse flywheel effect’. There's a certain relative configuration of A, D, V values combined with the differing DNT inflation rates that can cause a subDAO to get crushed, not because it's not a good/promising project long term, but because the ROI incentive for veHNT holders is to delegate or redelegate towards the treasury that's giving the highest HNT emission ROI. Look up “Stag Hunt Game Theory” for a much simpler example of what I can try to explain in more technically detailed Helium terms if you want. I'm not sure even the sqrt of V will completely solve this issue tbh, but it will certainly help it.
Interesting that your concern with how easily your allocation between subDAOs can be made is actually what gives me hope. The only way to efficiently earn as many subDAO tokens as possible is to correctly balance your allocation to the distribution of those tokens to the subDAOs. And to do that doesn't require significant effort. All you need to do is to divide your stake into ten appropriately-sized positions; from there you can allocate and stay within 2.5% of the perfect match (which may turn out to be within the daily standard deviation of the earn rates). If those folks staking HNT are interested in maximizing the benefit, it behooves them to allocate correctly. There might be a perverse incentive to grab a larger share of the 6% of an un-loved subDAO, but a larger portion of smaller amount of value is foolish when you could have easily earned the appropriate amount. (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/14/2023 4:13 PM
There won’t be a runaway because you get a percentage of a bucket of DNTs so if enough people delegate to one there is a huge incentive to delegate to the other. The runaway scenario assumes that DNTs only value is their redeem rate for HNT in the treasury. This isn’t the case since there will be DNT staking, DNT burn, and general speculation that will decouple DNT value from treasury fund value
Avatar
Now if HIP80 passes, the ability to accurately balance your allocation of veHNT comes into question. The distortion it creates is worrisome.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
Interesting that your concern with how easily your allocation between subDAOs can be made is actually what gives me hope. The only way to efficiently earn as many subDAO tokens as possible is to correctly balance your allocation to the distribution of those tokens to the subDAOs. And to do that doesn't require significant effort. All you need to do is to divide your stake into ten appropriately-sized positions; from there you can allocate and stay within 2.5% of the perfect match (which may turn out to be within the daily standard deviation of the earn rates). If those folks staking HNT are interested in maximizing the benefit, it behooves them to allocate correctly. There might be a perverse incentive to grab a larger share of the 6% of an un-loved subDAO, but a larger portion of smaller amount of value is foolish when you could have easily earned the appropriate amount. (edited)
Right, but what I'm saying is I think there are configurations you get in here which cause a self-reinforcing veHNT redelegation movement of 100% towards one subDAO and 0% towards the other, and that point is a stable Nash Equilibrium (no single actor can redelegate without hurting themselves). The fact a lot of folks will be land rushers getting 3x rewards just further increases the issue.
16:27
The key issue here is the proportional decrease in claim towards the future 6% DNT emissions of a subDAO is offset by the proportional increase in HNT emissions to that respective subDAO due to the linear V factor shifting them towards that subDAO. They basically cancel out.
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Right, but what I'm saying is I think there are configurations you get in here which cause a self-reinforcing veHNT redelegation movement of 100% towards one subDAO and 0% towards the other, and that point is a stable Nash Equilibrium (no single actor can redelegate without hurting themselves). The fact a lot of folks will be land rushers getting 3x rewards just further increases the issue.
Huh I called it the free surface effect but I thin it is simular
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There won’t be a runaway because you get a percentage of a bucket of DNTs so if enough people delegate to one there is a huge incentive to delegate to the other. The runaway scenario assumes that DNTs only value is their redeem rate for HNT in the treasury. This isn’t the case since there will be DNT staking, DNT burn, and general speculation that will decouple DNT value from treasury fund value
Right, as a veHNT delegator you get a portion of a stream of DNT tokens that equal some proportional claim on a bucket of HNT. However the proportional decrease of your share of the DNT stream due to more people delegating towards that bucket is largely offset by the proportional increase of more HNT going into that bucket due to the proportional increase in linear V factor your delegation causes. Simply put, doubling the amount of veHNT to a bucket means everyone gets 1/2 as much of that 6% stream of DNT, but now there's also 2x the amount of Helium pouring into the bucket. However there are asymmetries in terms of both scale (i.e. having $100 is actually more than 100x as valuable better than having only $1 because of the extra stuff scale of value gets you), and the difference in DNT inflation rates that can potentially cascade things towards that 100-0 equilibrium. For example IoT simple year over year inflation rate year 2 per HIP 52 is 46%, MOBILE inflation rate year 2 is 37.5%. I'm sure folks understand compounding and value investing know how that difference causes a massive impact in terms of determining net present value of an asset if a stock is being diluted year over year by 46% vs by 37.5%. The lower inflation asset has a huge advantage.
Avatar
If a large portion of veHNT delegators are going to be land rushers, it just compounds this issue, as it extenuates any differences in economic incentive of delegation between subDAO's to overcome "redelegation inertia" [Edit: adjusted language per Rules, hopefully term 'economic incentive' is Kosher?] (edited)
👍 1
17:14
The sqrt on the V factor substantially dampens the cascading veHNT redelegation issue, mainly because you now get a diminishing increase in additional HNT capture for the subDAO at the extremes ends of relative V values, while the lose in your claim of said stream is still decreasing proportionally at those far ends.
Avatar
Anyway, not trying to diminish other points of the discussion, but to me this one change that HIP 80 offers that may seem small to some folks is I think very impactful for long term stability and success of both IoT and MOBILE, getting a sqrt on that V factor. That's why I'm voting for HIP 80.
👍 3
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
Right, but what I'm saying is I think there are configurations you get in here which cause a self-reinforcing veHNT redelegation movement of 100% towards one subDAO and 0% towards the other, and that point is a stable Nash Equilibrium (no single actor can redelegate without hurting themselves). The fact a lot of folks will be land rushers getting 3x rewards just further increases the issue.
The value of a subDAO's tokens you gain by incorrectly moving your veHNT to said subDAO is less than the value you would have gained if you move your veHNT to the correct subDAO. It is because of the other factors in the Utility Score; in this case, the D factor. Again, while there may be a perverse incentive to attempt to pull of what you are worried about, the economics do not reward you for doing so as much as if you had balanced your allocation in an effort to maximize the value you earn.
19:23
While you are correct that square root-ing the V factor can mitigate the effect of extreme allocations, there are scnearios where such extreme delegation ratios are correct (in that we wish to get rid of a dead protocol). The square root of the V factor then has the effect of protecting such a dead protocol and letting continue to earn HNT to its treasury inappropriately.
19:25
My analyses of various transformation options suggest that you probably don't want to do the transformation but if you did, you would be best served to use the arcsin transformation of the V factor. This is because the effect of normalizing the skew of the distribution is far less when the ratio is less extreme and more when it is most extreme. However, even arcsin has the effect of protecting a dead protocol; explicitly because of minimizing the skewness of the distribution.
Avatar
I have to agree with Max (as much as I dislike saying that 🙂 ) on that it is highly unlikely that you will get extreme distributions any ways. This is because the second the veHNT shifts, the marginal increase in the proportionate claim to the 6% of the other subDAO provides an incentive to break from the group that is trying to incorrectly swing the allocation. It not only behooves you to go to the other subDAO because you get a bigger slice of that now un-loved subDAO, you also get more of the value of the HNT being earn to that unloved subDAO's treasury. There is no economic incentive that is greater than the economic benefit of allocating correctly. "Correctly" as in, being in balance with the down flow of the HNT tokens; which of course should be staying in balance with the up flow of value from the subDAOs. While there might be minor distortions caused by over-speculation of a subDAO's potential success, even that difference should evaporate quickly as people's stake, the actual burn, and move towards equilibrium.
19:39
And I apologize for repeating myself, but HIP80 is introducing distortions to that balance that remain both for years and forever going forward; all in the apparent interest of providing welfare. Welfare for subDAOs that have shown zero need for it. None whatsoever. If we were correcting some actual harm that was occurring, I am sure more of us would be open to the idea of introducing such distortions. How can you vote yes given there is no need for it. . The only thing that explicitly needs to be fixed here is that the Mobile operators pay their onboarding fees (or have someone pay for them). Not write them off; actually be paid. That is all.
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
If a large portion of veHNT delegators are going to be land rushers, it just compounds this issue, as it extenuates any differences in economic incentive of delegation between subDAO's to overcome "redelegation inertia" [Edit: adjusted language per Rules, hopefully term 'economic incentive' is Kosher?] (edited)
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/15/2023 4:05 AM
Please adjust your post about ROI, per the #rules we cannot discuss that here.
Avatar
Most of us seem to agree that: 1) We want some way to reward (or protect?) the IOT network, at least in the short term. 2) We want this protection to be fair and not arbitrary. 3) We don’t want this protection to be able to be exploited by potential new subdaos down the road. There obviously are different approaches for accomplishing these three goals, but to me it seems like the most efficient path must somehow use the A factor. The IOT network has already burned so much dc in building out their network, that this (the A factor) seems like the best tool to use. The current formula in Hip 51 certainly isn’t perfect, but I think completely getting rid of the A factor would be a huge mistake, which is why I’m personally voting against Hip 80.
Avatar
Avatar
KeithR
I have to agree with Max (as much as I dislike saying that 🙂 ) on that it is highly unlikely that you will get extreme distributions any ways. This is because the second the veHNT shifts, the marginal increase in the proportionate claim to the 6% of the other subDAO provides an incentive to break from the group that is trying to incorrectly swing the allocation. It not only behooves you to go to the other subDAO because you get a bigger slice of that now un-loved subDAO, you also get more of the value of the HNT being earn to that unloved subDAO's treasury. There is no economic incentive that is greater than the economic benefit of allocating correctly. "Correctly" as in, being in balance with the down flow of the HNT tokens; which of course should be staying in balance with the up flow of value from the subDAOs. While there might be minor distortions caused by over-speculation of a subDAO's potential success, even that difference should evaporate quickly as people's stake, the actual burn, and move towards equilibrium.
I'm not as active here as you, and so I value your well-informed opinion on Helium and appreciate your 5G updates and know you're seeking the network's best interest. My controls theory and mod and sim background makes me suspicious if that function will always behave as you expect, especially in potential corner cases. With Monte Carlo dynamic simulations that explicitly show the direction and magnitudes of incentives pushing that V factor for different parameters we might find ourselves in (with 2 subDAO's+), including the effects of DNT inflation difference at least, and also introducing some stepwise "shocks", I might be more comfortable about it.
06:55
In the case of that utility score function, I see 5 nonlinearities (3 floors, a sqrt, and 4th root), a V value that can shift epoch by epoch per human psychology/incentive patterns with ties to a hidden asymmetry inherently favoring Mobile over IoT (lower token inflation rate). It seems kind of arbitrary to say this formula will determine the “correct” value at equilibrium. Why not use a 3rth root? Or a 1.5 root? Or multiply one factor or another by a different constant? The equilibrium (correct) value may also happen to be a terrible value for the purposes of nurturing a new small subDAO into a viable and prosperous network, or supporting current subDAO’s if they run into temporary hard times.
06:58
The sqrt on V would at least help pull in that equilibrium, whatever it is, away from the extremes. (a) Downside is you could potentially have subDAO’s that should fade away sticking around a bit longer and earning a bit more than they should, until a 2/3 governance vote handles the issue. (b) Upside is you’re less likely to inadvertently squash small but promising subDAO’s before they reach their potential I think it’s prudent to accept the downside of (a) for the upside of (b) especially given the uncertainty of that utility function.
👍🏻 2
👆 1
10k 2
Avatar
That's why I'm voting in favor of hip-80, I'm confident it's "directionally correct" given the uncertainties. I do think we're going to need a follow on hip to refine the utility function down the road, but by then we'll have some real world data, which we could use to validate a simulator to provide more confidence in how adjustments to function parameters may effect outcomes. I'll do it myself, but it's going to take me some free time (not much time for me these days between family, main job, part time job, and side hustle business...)
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
That's why I'm voting in favor of hip-80, I'm confident it's "directionally correct" given the uncertainties. I do think we're going to need a follow on hip to refine the utility function down the road, but by then we'll have some real world data, which we could use to validate a simulator to provide more confidence in how adjustments to function parameters may effect outcomes. I'll do it myself, but it's going to take me some free time (not much time for me these days between family, main job, part time job, and side hustle business...)
(a) Downside is you could potentially have subDAO’s that should fade away sticking around a bit longer and earning a bit more than they should, until a 2/3 governance vote handles the issue.
I think this is a pretty wild generalization and I'm curious how people will respond when we have wifi dabba and the mapper DAO and those 3 (including MOBILE) will get 11.1% of rewards each purely for existing.
I do think we're going to need a follow on hip to refine the utility function down the road
Knowing up front it is inadequate would be a good reason to postpone or discard in my opinion.
(edited)
09:01
It incentivizes the Helium DAO to only take in projects which are already up and running and when they are up and running they won't want to join anymore because they are already up and running. A nice catch 22 that essentially hobbles the entire Helium DAO structure.
09:08
For example, with HIP80 the speculated Mapper subDAO probably won't get added because few will think it is worth 12% of rewards. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
groot
(a) Downside is you could potentially have subDAO’s that should fade away sticking around a bit longer and earning a bit more than they should, until a 2/3 governance vote handles the issue.
I think this is a pretty wild generalization and I'm curious how people will respond when we have wifi dabba and the mapper DAO and those 3 (including MOBILE) will get 11.1% of rewards each purely for existing.
I do think we're going to need a follow on hip to refine the utility function down the road
Knowing up front it is inadequate would be a good reason to postpone or discard in my opinion.
(edited)
Completely agree. There’s no emergency that needs to be fixed right now, so let’s take the time to do this change the right way instead of pushing this HIP through while already starting to talk about how we need an additional HIP after this one. The biggest short term affect of HIP 80 is the canceling of the onboard responsibility of Mobile, which I don’t even think is a net positive at all, let alone something that requires an emergency fix.
👆 1
Avatar
HIP-81 defers the payment, proposing to cover the missing fees with larger payments later. In my view, the network builders are not where we should be looking for DC Burn at this point. Better incentivize growing the network, and enable DC Butn that way.
👍 3
💯 3
Avatar
I disagree. I think having onboard fees is a great defense against worthless subdaos, and even more importantly, a fair way to reward the legacy IOT network by valuing all the onboard fees it’s already paid.
10k 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
HIP-81 defers the payment, proposing to cover the missing fees with larger payments later. In my view, the network builders are not where we should be looking for DC Burn at this point. Better incentivize growing the network, and enable DC Butn that way.
Defers payments to a fixed date in the future, larger payments later is something the subDAO has to figure out.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I disagree. I think having onboard fees is a great defense against worthless subdaos, and even more importantly, a fair way to reward the legacy IOT network by valuing all the onboard fees it’s already paid.
I’ve shown way in the upscroll that under the HIP-51 formula, you can game significant emissions with just $100K or even $10K of paid onboarding fees. Neither HIP-80 nor HIP-81 protect well against an “evil” subDAO. We will need to consider that in the future, possibly in the HIP that introduces the next subDAO. But better before that, in a separate subDAO defense HIP. Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.
09:31
Gotta leave here again, back to the vineyards. 👋
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I’ve shown way in the upscroll that under the HIP-51 formula, you can game significant emissions with just $100K or even $10K of paid onboarding fees. Neither HIP-80 nor HIP-81 protect well against an “evil” subDAO. We will need to consider that in the future, possibly in the HIP that introduces the next subDAO. But better before that, in a separate subDAO defense HIP. Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.
I definitely don’t things are fine leaving them as is with 51 forever. I just don’t think 80 is the solution and we should really take our time and come to a consensus with the best way forward.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I’ve shown way in the upscroll that under the HIP-51 formula, you can game significant emissions with just $100K or even $10K of paid onboarding fees. Neither HIP-80 nor HIP-81 protect well against an “evil” subDAO. We will need to consider that in the future, possibly in the HIP that introduces the next subDAO. But better before that, in a separate subDAO defense HIP. Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.
true bad internal actors are really hard to deal with, esp in some sort of programmatic way the real answer is just governance and a watchful eye on real metrics, why we should always incentivize building real things, rather than spoofing/faking and the like.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
true bad internal actors are really hard to deal with, esp in some sort of programmatic way the real answer is just governance and a watchful eye on real metrics, why we should always incentivize building real things, rather than spoofing/faking and the like.
I don't think building real things vs spoofing/faking has anything to do with detecting bad subDAOs.
Avatar
Important to note that “bad” subdaos can include fraudulent subdaos as well as well intentioned but dying subdaos. And there will be a million shades of gray in terms of both, as it will rarely be obviously black and white.
👆 2
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
true bad internal actors are really hard to deal with, esp in some sort of programmatic way the real answer is just governance and a watchful eye on real metrics, why we should always incentivize building real things, rather than spoofing/faking and the like.
What do you think should happen in the case of well-intentioned but dying subdaos. Are you envisioning that they would be “governed” aka voted out? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Important to note that “bad” subdaos can include fraudulent subdaos as well as well intentioned but dying subdaos. And there will be a million shades of gray in terms of both, as it will rarely be obviously black and white.
right yes im not making that distinction but IMO there needs to a bag and a process that makes it not worth the risk but again this is hard to get exactly right im working on that now happy to take any suggestions on how to accomplish this
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
What do you think should happen in the case of well-intentioned but dying subdaos. Are you envisioning that they would be “governed” aka voted out? (edited)
well taht again is hard and I come back to vote, do you have specific scenario in mind?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
right yes im not making that distinction but IMO there needs to a bag and a process that makes it not worth the risk but again this is hard to get exactly right im working on that now happy to take any suggestions on how to accomplish this
I think that’s simply an impossible ask. Weak and dying subdaos should be given a chance to turn things around. We should not be voting them out unless they have completely ceased operations.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I think that’s simply an impossible ask. Weak and dying subdaos should be given a chance to turn things around. We should not be voting them out unless they have completely ceased operations.
How long they are given that chance is arbitrary and a good example of it being some shade of gray and not black nor white.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
How long they are given that chance is arbitrary and a good example of it being some shade of gray and not black nor white.
Exactly. It’s a nightmare to have to govern that.
👆 3
Avatar
Well there are plenty of nightmare scenarios in 51...
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/15/2023 12:48 PM
Yes, but the downside risk is less because of the huge amount of DC burn needed to pull off
👆 1
Avatar
~ 33k HNT needed to block 80
18:07
@ferebee be like
😂 1
18:07
💯 1
Avatar
This is a nail biter for sure lol
Avatar
Seems like a good experience that reinforces the value of staking HNT and obtaining veHNT (post Solana). I have heard many times before, “what’s the point of voting?” Welp, if you are passionate about your position, . . . then vote!!! If you want more vote power, lock up a small % for long term. Locking up ~1,250 HNT for 48 months is roughly equivalent to someone staking 10,000 HNT for 6 months. Everyone’s vote counts. (edited)
Avatar
850,000 for 80 in final 5 minutes??? doubtful
Avatar
Thanks to Max, ferebee and all other authors of 80/81. Although they didn’t pass, this whole process was a huge win for community engagement. Although I was away for most of the process, I see a lot of important topics were discussed and vetted. I’m sure we’ll be able to use the progress made here to come to a solution that will please a 2/3rds majority next time 👏
🎈 8
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/15/2023 8:44 PM
We're all building the network together. Think we found some common ground in the past few days and can hopefully build together as a strong community after this
💯 5
👆 2
👍🏻 1
Avatar
Avatar
rawrmaan
Thanks to Max, ferebee and all other authors of 80/81. Although they didn’t pass, this whole process was a huge win for community engagement. Although I was away for most of the process, I see a lot of important topics were discussed and vetted. I’m sure we’ll be able to use the progress made here to come to a solution that will please a 2/3rds majority next time 👏
I for sure have mixed feelings. Over long passages, the way the debate was led was far from what I'd call constructive, solution-oriented or professional. As side effects (not the only ones), it created a much bigger information load to process/filter through than necessary and may have put off people from further participating in the discussion. Not something I like to see again. (edited)
10k 5
Avatar
Thanks all for the huge engagement! I’m still AFK until later today. This has been an amazing educational experience for me, and maybe for many of us. Fortunately, while we believe HIP-80 or HIP-81 would be better, HIP-51 gives a solid foundation on which we can build. Onward!
👍 2
💯 3
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I for sure have mixed feelings. Over long passages, the way the debate was led was far from what I'd call constructive, solution-oriented or professional. As side effects (not the only ones), it created a much bigger information load to process/filter through than necessary and may have put off people from further participating in the discussion. Not something I like to see again. (edited)
The sad thing here is, you will see it again and again and again. This amount of discord within a community can cause a once strong community to die from within. A house divided against itself will not stand.
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
The sad thing here is, you will see it again and again and again. This amount of discord within a community can cause a once strong community to die from within. A house divided against itself will not stand.
You can’t expect the people not agreeing with you to just shush because they don’t agree with you either.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You can’t expect the people not agreeing with you to just shush because they don’t agree with you either.
Not sure if we are referring to the same thing. Thus as a general thought: Being unyielding on one hand and being respectful/constructive on the other are things that aren't mutually exclusive. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
Not sure if we are referring to the same thing. Thus as a general thought: Being unyielding on one hand and being respectful/constructive on the other are things that aren't mutually exclusive. (edited)
I can agree on that. There was way too much politics involved in this one, up to slander and rewriting history.
🤝 3
Avatar
hey, HIP 80 vs 81, HIP 80 had 100 less votes but over ~600,000 more HNT in the weight. max is on twitter saying 80 lost out, what’s the word here? Does vote count or HNT count take the cake?
🤨 1
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
hey, HIP 80 vs 81, HIP 80 had 100 less votes but over ~600,000 more HNT in the weight. max is on twitter saying 80 lost out, what’s the word here? Does vote count or HNT count take the cake?
nosmaster89 04/16/2023 5:09 AM
both lost
👍 1
Avatar
ooo word
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
hey, HIP 80 vs 81, HIP 80 had 100 less votes but over ~600,000 more HNT in the weight. max is on twitter saying 80 lost out, what’s the word here? Does vote count or HNT count take the cake?
Neither reached supermajority so Max is right.
Avatar
i see now. thanks 🙏
Avatar
Avatar
tanny
hey, HIP 80 vs 81, HIP 80 had 100 less votes but over ~600,000 more HNT in the weight. max is on twitter saying 80 lost out, what’s the word here? Does vote count or HNT count take the cake?
Both lost out. 😉
Avatar
word thanks again everyone. i just rolled out of bed so my reading comprehension was at a low, straightened out. i appreciate it 🎈
Avatar
@yungthug had a good comment. NOVA needs to hire at least one Tokenomics PhD/expert to help draft/review these kinds of hips alongside the community.
💯 2
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
The sad thing here is, you will see it again and again and again. This amount of discord within a community can cause a once strong community to die from within. A house divided against itself will not stand.
I agree there I want helium to succeed we will have to move forward and find more concensus. But there really isn't a scenario where everyone is happy. I'm just trying to stop disasters from happening, right now as it sits mobile growth will continue to stagnante... we need move forward we will just have to find a new path
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
@yungthug had a good comment. NOVA needs to hire at least one Tokenomics PhD/expert to help draft/review these kinds of hips alongside the community.
Respectfully no, experts like this almost don't exist because anyone worth anything pursue there own projects. Ferebee is the best candidate
👎 2
Avatar
Avatar
Jaybob
@yungthug had a good comment. NOVA needs to hire at least one Tokenomics PhD/expert to help draft/review these kinds of hips alongside the community.
Didn't Helium reach out to Tushar to write HIP51?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I for sure have mixed feelings. Over long passages, the way the debate was led was far from what I'd call constructive, solution-oriented or professional. As side effects (not the only ones), it created a much bigger information load to process/filter through than necessary and may have put off people from further participating in the discussion. Not something I like to see again. (edited)
Agreed, too much infighting. I think that it's easy to do when we're fighting with words on a screen and not in person.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Didn't Helium reach out to Tushar to write HIP51?
I'm not sure how that all came about, but yes I am willing to talk to anyone even those I disagree with 😉
🍓 1
Avatar
EdB-charlietango 04/16/2023 8:34 AM
There is no imminent danger. Let's put our heads together and get one solid proposal forward!
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Respectfully no, experts like this almost don't exist because anyone worth anything pursue there own projects. Ferebee is the best candidate
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 8:55 AM
Source?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Source?
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Respectfully no, experts like this almost don't exist because anyone worth anything pursue there own projects. Ferebee is the best candidate
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/16/2023 9:01 AM
They do exist, those kind of people we need to find have to have an economic or game theory background.
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
I for sure have mixed feelings. Over long passages, the way the debate was led was far from what I'd call constructive, solution-oriented or professional. As side effects (not the only ones), it created a much bigger information load to process/filter through than necessary and may have put off people from further participating in the discussion. Not something I like to see again. (edited)
for sure, but one thing is i am surprised to is the total spectrum of opinions on these facts, but it just tells me that unfortunatly people don't want graphs and line charts lots of people eyes just glaze over. so rhetoric takes over
Avatar
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams
They do exist, those kind of people we need to find have to have an economic or game theory background.
yes but that is one of the most sought fields in existence, and sub par talent is in many cases worse than no talent
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 9:09 AM
No, you misunderstood the arguments against your solution. The right answer wasn’t what mattered. It was how do we get to the right answer.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No, you misunderstood the arguments against your solution. The right answer wasn’t what mattered. It was how do we get to the right answer.
I understand them, but this isn't a right and wrong dichotomy, this is a direction to take in a total spectrum of choices
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 9:12 AM
Nope, code is law.
Avatar
So @Max - Just Max it looks like we haven’t yet found a successful solution to the original question, what to do about the onboarding fees that MOBILE didn’t pay. I think it would be good to build as much consensus as possible. I’d like to return to my suggestion https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1093953561970352309/1094298181426237521 that we revive HIP-78, which proposed a simple solution (manufacturers pay up), and failed because nobody came forward. We could replace that with the solution you developed for HIP-81: fees are deferred until 1 August, and MOBILE operates until then as if the fees had been paid. And we could add the provision you developed for the minimum onboarding fee, with halvenings. I had suggested we might use the square root for V, but as that’s controversial, it might be best to drop it. Some of the clarifications in HIP-78 still seem worthwhile to me, and don’t contradict the provisions of HIP-81. So the end result would leave the A factor of HIP-51 intact, while we would still clarify multiple ambiguities and specify a workable solution to the MOBILE fees. What do you think?
👍 1
Avatar
Sounds like your proposal is trying to bring forward the issues that have the most consensus while deferring the ones that don't till August 1
09:52
I think it would be a tall order to require mfg to pay for onboarding fees 1 year after MOBILE network deployment personally
09:55
I know this would likely be controversial but it may be best to require Hotspot owners to pay the fee if they want to participate in PoC rewards. It would be helpful if there was a way to do so by directly converting MOBILE/DC to burn it through the hotspot GUI/Helium App.
09:56
Maybe by August 1st we can determine what MOBILE's value is.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Sounds like your proposal is trying to bring forward the issues that have the most consensus while deferring the ones that don't till August 1
Well, let’s say HIP-81 has a proposal for dealing with fees. In my view we would still need to get buyin from Noah in particular, who has suggested that any form of slashing needs to be treated very carefully, but at least he would have time to develop the implementation.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 10:00 AM
Slashing was voted in with HIP-51
10:01
Bad precedent to set IMO
Avatar
I don’t see why who pays should be in the HIP. There should definitely be a defined way to pay, and a consequence as to what happens if a hotspot isn’t onboarded, but I would say just let the free market handle who’s actually paying.
👆 1
Avatar
What’s a bad precedent? Noah was saying that a particular difficulty with slashing is defining who has authority to slash. I’m not opposed to the idea, I just think it would make sense to involve Noah in the specification of how that authority should be vested for this particular case.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I don’t see why who pays should be in the HIP. There should definitely be a defined way to pay, and a consequence as to what happens if a hotspot isn’t onboarded, but I would say just let the free market handle who’s actually paying.
My suggestion here is to start with the procedure defined in HIP-81, which does exactly what you suggest, with the provision that the missing fees will be slashed if they aren’t paid by the deadline.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Bad precedent to set IMO
What do you mean by bad precedent?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
My suggestion here is to start with the procedure defined in HIP-81, which does exactly what you suggest, with the provision that the missing fees will be slashed if they aren’t paid by the deadline.
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 10:11 AM
That’s just HIP-81
👆 1
Avatar
Of course we have multiple paths forward here, including punting and leaving MOBILE with an A factor of 1 until a new method of onboarding is developed, and some people volunteer to pay onboarding fees. As an alternative, I’m offering to take HIP-78 and - replace the bits that specify how onboarding fees should be paid with the procedure developed for HIP-81, including the deferment, which is an innovation by HIP-81 over all previous proposals, and - integrate the halvening schedule for minimum onboarding fees. In my view, certain clarifications of HIP-78 are still valuable, and don’t contradict the goals of HIP-81. For example, it clarifies location assertion fees to avoid the question of whether MOBILE is missing those fees relative to the specification in HIP-53. And it clarifies that all HNT emissions to subDAOs must follow the DAO Utility Score, to eliminate previous confusion of how Data Transfer rewards should be treated.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
That’s just HIP-81
This is just my suggestion. I’d be adding you and groot as coauthors, as we would be using the key features from HIP-81. Anybody else can make any other suggestion, and as always anybody can always propose a completely new HIP too.
Avatar
Ferebee, is there anything specifically in HIP 81 that you disagree with? Or are you just proposing HIP 81 with some additional things added?
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Ferebee, is there anything specifically in HIP 81 that you disagree with? Or are you just proposing HIP 81 with some additional things added?
That's a reasonable question. In my view there are ambiguities left by HIP-81 that it would be good to resolve, which is why I’m offering to merge the features of HIP-81 into HIP-78. If this is controversial, I don’t really think I need any more controversy right now. 😆
Avatar
It’s more that I’m just curious what the existing issues with HIP 81 are so we can come to a consensus on it. All things being equal, I think smaller HIPs are better, so I’m hesitant to take an existing HIP and add more things on to it. What specific areas in HIP 81 do you think are ambiguous? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That's a reasonable question. In my view there are ambiguities left by HIP-81 that it would be good to resolve, which is why I’m offering to merge the features of HIP-81 into HIP-78. If this is controversial, I don’t really think I need any more controversy right now. 😆
Wouldn’t it be more straight forward to have just come forward with those ambiguities in the first place..? Anyway, I’m sure that if they’re reasonable they could be incorporated..
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I agree there I want helium to succeed we will have to move forward and find more concensus. But there really isn't a scenario where everyone is happy. I'm just trying to stop disasters from happening, right now as it sits mobile growth will continue to stagnante... we need move forward we will just have to find a new path
A community that fights against itself will hasten this. Future of Mobile??? (edited)
10:47
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Wouldn’t it be more straight forward to have just come forward with those ambiguities in the first place..? Anyway, I’m sure that if they’re reasonable they could be incorporated..
Yeah, I think Ferebee should point out the ambiguities and give Max a chance to update the HIP. Then any additional changes should be part of a separate HIP.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 10:52 AM
HIP-81 wasn’t perfect; it was very rushed and done in a weekend. Happy to incorporate @ferebee’s changes to it
Avatar
Is there anyone who lists the problems that are required or required to be solved in a clear article in the form of items? 1. 2. 3. ……
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 11:00 AM
1) Mobile onboards haven’t been paid and we don’t know how to proceed. That’s kinda it
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP-81 wasn’t perfect; it was very rushed and done in a weekend. Happy to incorporate @ferebee’s changes to it
Where was this comment when Ferebee reached out to you and Groot to co-author a new HIP? Your response was, “We already wrote the HIP.” In any event, it’s nice to see wisdom come into the picture. (edited)
🙄 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Where was this comment when Ferebee reached out to you and Groot to co-author a new HIP? Your response was, “We already wrote the HIP.” In any event, it’s nice to see wisdom come into the picture. (edited)
To copy stuff into HIP78 instead of collaborating on 81 was the question from ferebee.
11:42
But anyway, not sure how this is productive so lets look forward instead of backward..
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Where was this comment when Ferebee reached out to you and Groot to co-author a new HIP? Your response was, “We already wrote the HIP.” In any event, it’s nice to see wisdom come into the picture. (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 11:42 AM
As much as people think these discussions aren’t productive, they are just the result of negotiating and building in public. 78 was still Helium DAO telling a subDAO how to handle their business. Ferebee and I reached some common ground on Friday which changed the feasibility of us working together
Avatar
Avatar
AndrewsMD
Click to see attachment 🖼️
It almost feels like this was directed squarely at Helium, lol
👆 1
11:57
I'm not sure what his comment is implying. He holds Solana - a Smart Contracts platform that would be impacted negatively by his assessment.
12:00
It's like saying everyone will build their own internet to build their website because the internet has a higher valuation.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I'm not sure what his comment is implying. He holds Solana - a Smart Contracts platform that would be impacted negatively by his assessment.
Why do you think that? If anything, it’s directed at Polygon more than Solana. But as we all point out, it raises an interesting question as far as Helium is concerned. The more decentralized governance the Helium subDAOs hold independent of the Helium DAO, the easier it is for them to vote to decouple from HNT. We, as we build these subDAOs, need to consider that when we decide how much independence to grant them.
👍 2
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
It almost feels like this was directed squarely at Helium, lol
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 12:22 PM
I think it was just a general statement about L2s. I wouldn’t read too much into it. It’s interesting that is the conclusion rather than just recognizing that L1s are over valued
Avatar
Avatar
groot
Wouldn’t it be more straight forward to have just come forward with those ambiguities in the first place..? Anyway, I’m sure that if they’re reasonable they could be incorporated..
I was honestly quite busy enough all through yesterday just with HIP-80, which was our best attempt at solving the issues around HIP-51 my HIP-80 coauthors and I have identified. So I haven’t really had much extra time to go through HIP-81 with a fine tooth comb while you were developing it as an alternative proposal. Identifying and resolving ambiguities is hard work.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
HIP-81 wasn’t perfect; it was very rushed and done in a weekend. Happy to incorporate @ferebee’s changes to it
So I don’t have changes ready. But I read through HIP-81 again, and here are some things that I don’t find fully clear. Formula The formula states a product (device count times fee), but the text describes a sum of fees, which, as suggested elsewhere, may vary a great deal. This is already an issue in HIP-51, which does not clearly include the onboarding fees of Data Only Hotspots. Slashing Slashing is a dangerous thing. Who is given the authority to perform slashing on 1 August for missing onboarding fees, if the conditions specified are met? That is, who decides whether they have been met? Who holds the keys? Example idea: Perhaps we could have a safer procedure with a smart contract that would slash just a certain percentage of fresh emissions until the deficit is covered? Grace Period The A factor of MOBILE counts all Hotspots that were active during the last 30 days, including FreedomFi Hotspots with no radios, which have only ever participated in IOT, and even ones that are located outside the US. Is that intentional? Grace Period How is the “onboarding fee debt” of MOBILE calculated? Does it take into account all MOBILE Hotspots that were ever active, or just those active within the last 30 days of July?
Avatar
Avatar
groot
To copy stuff into HIP78 instead of collaborating on 81 was the question from ferebee.
I think HIP-80 and HIP-81 have both failed. Any new attempt will certainly get a new number. In any case, I offered to do more work, taking up proposals you developed, but that was just a suggestion. On the other hand, after all the discussion that’s been had already, maybe you want to do more work, and build the next proposal. I’m fine with that too, and can definitely offer some suggestions there. Among other things, I believe the points in HIP-78 in the final Clarification section are worthwhile, as are the points relating to Location Assertion. As well as the points I mentioned above. But with more discussion, with a bit less time pressure, we can all contribute.
Avatar
Are all future devices required to pay the same burn fee if they join the MOBILE ecosystem? What if the devices are different? For example, WiFi Hotspots or other types of devices require the same onboarding fee as CBRS equipment?
13:53
I see a problem within the IoT subDAO, as light hotspots join the network their cost goes from 500 to 50 and now the onboarding fee will represent 90+% of the hardware cost
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Are all future devices required to pay the same burn fee if they join the MOBILE ecosystem? What if the devices are different? For example, WiFi Hotspots or other types of devices require the same onboarding fee as CBRS equipment?
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 1:55 PM
SubDAOs choose their own onboard fees
Avatar
I'm just speaking in terms of the A score. It takes both the number of devices and the onboard fee. Once that is determined, the fee cannot be changed afterwards, correct?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I think HIP-80 and HIP-81 have both failed. Any new attempt will certainly get a new number. In any case, I offered to do more work, taking up proposals you developed, but that was just a suggestion. On the other hand, after all the discussion that’s been had already, maybe you want to do more work, and build the next proposal. I’m fine with that too, and can definitely offer some suggestions there. Among other things, I believe the points in HIP-78 in the final Clarification section are worthwhile, as are the points relating to Location Assertion. As well as the points I mentioned above. But with more discussion, with a bit less time pressure, we can all contribute.
Indeed, they both fell short of supermajority. I’m also sure something better with more consensus can be cooked up with more time (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I'm just speaking in terms of the A score. It takes both the number of devices and the onboard fee. Once that is determined, the fee cannot be changed afterwards, correct?
I was referring to that above in the paragraph Formula. The text of HIP-81 describes adding up all the diverse onboarding fees of different devices, and as the fee schedule only defines “minimum” onboarding fees, subDAOs would have leeway. Discussions on Discord suggested MOBILE might charge fees on the order of 10% of the retail cost of a radio, for example.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 2:19 PM
We’ve all kinda conceded the A needs to change. We didn’t want to change it in a weekend which is why we left it as is
Avatar
The whole premise of ‘this needs to happen like yesterday’ turned out to be false so now we have time to do it right
💯 1
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
1) Mobile onboards haven’t been paid and we don’t know how to proceed. That’s kinda it
Why was the payment not made, is this due to an error? Or is there a change of decision?
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
Why was the payment not made, is this due to an error? Or is there a change of decision?
HIP-53 specified a $40 onboarding fee and a $10 location assertion fee for MOBILE. In the actual implementation, the FreedomFi (and Bobber 5G) Hotspots combine two Hotspots in one. An IOT Hotspot, and a MOBILE Hotspot. Only the IOT Hotspot actually performed any onboarding. So one way of looking at it is, it was an implementation oversight.
Avatar
Early FreedomFi hotspots were onboarded before HIP53 existed so it kind of makes sense that they only onboarded to IOT
Avatar
only 1 license key defined? licensing can be defined in three ways: IoT, Mobile and both together. 40$,40$,80$(40$+40$). For those that have been installed so far, manufacturers should pay the additional payment externally by referring to the same license for mobile. you don't even need to write a separate hip for this. define three different license keys. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I was referring to that above in the paragraph Formula. The text of HIP-81 describes adding up all the diverse onboarding fees of different devices, and as the fee schedule only defines “minimum” onboarding fees, subDAOs would have leeway. Discussions on Discord suggested MOBILE might charge fees on the order of 10% of the retail cost of a radio, for example.
Considering some of the hotspots cost 6 thousand dollars, I don't see that as tenable
15:16
I would like to see some ideas to revise the A score though. I could come up with a few and maybe some others can too
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 3:17 PM
The gateway is a pretty terrible way to do it though since the earnings of a gateway are directly correlated with how many radios are attached to it
☝️ 2
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
only 1 license key defined? licensing can be defined in three ways: IoT, Mobile and both together. 40$,40$,80$(40$+40$). For those that have been installed so far, manufacturers should pay the additional payment externally by referring to the same license for mobile. you don't even need to write a separate hip for this. define three different license keys. (edited)
Any time you say “should pay”, you can’t just exit stage left. 😉
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 3:18 PM
As long as HIP-82 gives me $50,000 idc what else we do
😆 1
Avatar
I do think having some sort of "a" score is important, because it takes into account of installed hardware into the score.
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I would like to see some ideas to revise the A score though. I could come up with a few and maybe some others can too
I know what I think we should do with the A factor. I think I’ll just lay low for a bit on that. 😄
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 3:20 PM
If we can just make the radios an NFT and embeds the onboard price into the metadata of that NFT we should be able to count online devices (edited)
15:20
I believe that is technically possible to do
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If we can just make the radios an NFT and embeds the onboard price into the metadata of that NFT we should be able to count online devices (edited)
Thats a good point I didnt think of that
15:22
Maybe the oracles can add up all of the different NFTS and create a total pool.
15:24
so like a schedule of different NFTs with different onboarding fees that add up to be counted towards a pool instead of just a single "onboard fee"
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
only 1 license key defined? licensing can be defined in three ways: IoT, Mobile and both together. 40$,40$,80$(40$+40$). For those that have been installed so far, manufacturers should pay the additional payment externally by referring to the same license for mobile. you don't even need to write a separate hip for this. define three different license keys. (edited)
Another_AKA 04/16/2023 5:30 PM
It is far trickier to charge a single onboard flat fee for 'Mobile'. IOT gateway has a single earning Lora radio. A 5G gateway can have 12 radios attached. It might have $5k radios attached. It is not quite fair to IOT to charge Mobile the same flat fee for radically different radio costs and potential earning power. At a very minimum it should probably be (onboard fee x radio count). (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Another_AKA
It is far trickier to charge a single onboard flat fee for 'Mobile'. IOT gateway has a single earning Lora radio. A 5G gateway can have 12 radios attached. It might have $5k radios attached. It is not quite fair to IOT to charge Mobile the same flat fee for radically different radio costs and potential earning power. At a very minimum it should probably be (onboard fee x radio count). (edited)
so 12 hotspots in a box? Like scrapes with a graphics card?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I know what I think we should do with the A factor. I think I’ll just lay low for a bit on that. 😄
Can you elaborate on this? I struggle to see the downside of using the A factor in some capacity, so I’m curious why you think it should be removed?
Avatar
Well each factor has a function now many dbl dip but the main function of v is wisdom of the crowd. D is a function of the work done, A is a function of security. So to obtain max growth A should be minimized for 2 main reasons, 1 it redundant at least as it pertains to mobile because it is very tightly regulated as it is. 2 to be frank A worked pretty well as the second function to building burn into the network but it incetivizes the wrong behavior. People shouldn't buy equipment to just own it, they need to buy it because of the amount of work it can do. Which means D needs to be prioritized. But that would have hurt IOT at least in the short term so a long runways was the trade off that was 80 in a nut shell for me
👎 1
Avatar
But if a network comes on and sells devices that don’t do any actual work, first off it’s going to be hard to sell those devices, and secondly, there’s going to be no D factor for this network, right? And probably not much V either?
20:31
Am I interpreting your issue with A correctly? That your fear is it can be exploited by being made artificially too high?
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
so 12 hotspots in a box? Like scrapes with a graphics card?
Another_AKA 04/16/2023 8:34 PM
No. Its not a gaming vector. Its quite legitimate and possibly the best use cases if they are getting DC use. One 5G gateway (e.g. FreedomFi, Bobcat 500) can support multiple 5G radios. Think of a large indoor or multifloor building needing coverage with multiple indoor radios, a large outdoor gathering locale that will need multiple outdoor radios for peak capacity times or needing directional coverage. Onboard fee for 5G needs to be based on radio count and possibly a sliding scale based on device $. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
But if a network comes on and sells devices that don’t do any actual work, first off it’s going to be hard to sell those devices, and secondly, there’s going to be no D factor for this network, right? And probably not much V either?
As long as it burns Data (DC) it should be fine yes there are some scenarios we're it might make sense to fake it data meaning if I burn 1$ of DC I would get more than 1$ of hnt but both with the existing treasury system and with a soon to be proposed pool that will be required to be filled before you could extract any value and also that they could manage to do all this assuming some sort of commission will exist to vet and also sluethers etc. Yes its possible but the amount of effort risk and intelligence to pull it off you would be better off doing something else... IMO (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Am I interpreting your issue with A correctly? That your fear is it can be exploited by being made artificially too high?
You need to burn to get an A score so exploitable is debatable.
Avatar
Avatar
groot
You need to burn to get an A score so exploitable is debatable.
Max - Just Max 04/16/2023 11:03 PM
Depends on the price of the token. It’s not unexploitable when the price is high
Avatar
Avatar
Another_AKA
No. Its not a gaming vector. Its quite legitimate and possibly the best use cases if they are getting DC use. One 5G gateway (e.g. FreedomFi, Bobcat 500) can support multiple 5G radios. Think of a large indoor or multifloor building needing coverage with multiple indoor radios, a large outdoor gathering locale that will need multiple outdoor radios for peak capacity times or needing directional coverage. Onboard fee for 5G needs to be based on radio count and possibly a sliding scale based on device $. (edited)
One helium key per radio, only one payment per key. i think it makes sense
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Can you elaborate on this? I struggle to see the downside of using the A factor in some capacity, so I’m curious why you think it should be removed?
In my view, disadvantages of the A factor are that it is complicated to define and calculate, while not doing much useful work. In large, established networks, it’s not easy to game. But in new, pre-revenue networks, it’s trivial. We’ve discussed the Floor parameter of HIP-80, which gives new networks a Utility Score of 7 pre-revenue, before the V factor. By comparison, under the HIP-51 formula, you can get a Score of 7 (pre V) of 7 by spending $2,500 on onboarding fees. (A = fourth root of fees, 7*7*7*7 = 2,401.) Meanwhile, in established networks, DC Burn is what actually benefits the Helium DAO. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
In my view, disadvantages of the A factor are that it is complicated to define and calculate, while not doing much useful work. In large, established networks, it’s not easy to game. But in new, pre-revenue networks, it’s trivial. We’ve discussed the Floor parameter of HIP-80, which gives new networks a Utility Score of 7 pre-revenue, before the V factor. By comparison, under the HIP-51 formula, you can get a Score of 7 (pre V) of 7 by spending $2,500 on onboarding fees. (A = fourth root of fees, 7*7*7*7 = 2,401.) Meanwhile, in established networks, DC Burn is what actually benefits the Helium DAO. (edited)
In essence, the A factor is rewarding networks for their capital investment. I think fundamentally this makes sense as being one of the three prongs (V, D, and A) because it helps to reward up and coming networks that might take time to gain traction (e.g. IOT) but have been building something tangible. Do you think it doesn’t make sense on a conceptual level to reward for capital investment? Or is your primary concern just that as it’s currently implemented, the A factor can potentially be gamed? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
In essence, the A factor is rewarding networks for their capital investment. I think fundamentally this makes sense as being one of the three prongs (V, D, and A) because it helps to reward up and coming networks that might take time to gain traction (e.g. IOT) but have been building something tangible. Do you think it doesn’t make sense on a conceptual level to reward for capital investment? Or is your primary concern just that as it’s currently implemented, the A factor can potentially be gamed? (edited)
In the abstract, it sounds good to “reward” “networks” for “investment”. But I think if you look more closely, it’s not a trivial concept. The current implementation is not a straightforward incentive to build. To get four times the A factor, you need to spend 256 times the onboarding fees. In that sense, investment has starkly diminishing returns. So why not just keep starting new subDAOs? Much more efficient. And the incentives for individual participants, who actually spend the money, are different than the “incentive” for the “network”.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
In the abstract, it sounds good to “reward” “networks” for “investment”. But I think if you look more closely, it’s not a trivial concept. The current implementation is not a straightforward incentive to build. To get four times the A factor, you need to spend 256 times the onboarding fees. In that sense, investment has starkly diminishing returns. So why not just keep starting new subDAOs? Much more efficient. And the incentives for individual participants, who actually spend the money, are different than the “incentive” for the “network”.
Ok understood. Yeah I’m in agreement that the current formula needs work. I do believe there should be some A component in there though, especially since it’s a clear way to reward the IOT network without having to hard code some sort of special exception.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Ok understood. Yeah I’m in agreement that the current formula needs work. I do believe there should be some A component in there though, especially since it’s a clear way to reward the IOT network without having to hard code some sort of special exception.
Why “should” there be an A component? I haven’t seen any convincing reason brought forward, except that it is “just” in some sense.
👎 1
Avatar
I think it’s a great way to provide incentives to bootstrap networks that are actively being built but will take time to ramp up demand.
04:38
Not all networks are going to be built in the same manner, and so having three prongs (V, D, and A) allows for different networks to be rewarded in different ways.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I think it’s a great way to provide incentives to bootstrap networks that are actively being built but will take time to ramp up demand.
The A factor as written means that a network that spends $2,500 on onboarding fees gets the same minimum Score as a network under HIP-80 that does nothing… Which is 11% of the Score of IOT under HIP-51. (The Score of IOT under HIP-51 is about 63. HIP-80 gives every network a minimum Score of 7. Which is, as we see, trivial to achieve under HIP-51 as well.) Therefore, the A factor gives no protection worth speaking of against a “bad” subDAO obtaining a Score of 7. Or of 10, if it’s willing to spend $10,000 on onboarding fees, for example. As such, I question whether the A factor is actually useful.
Avatar
Again, I’m talking about the concept of using A in some capacity, not how it’s currently implemented in HIP 51. I completely agree the current formula has issues that need to be addressed this year.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Again, I’m talking about the concept of using A in some capacity, not how it’s currently implemented in HIP 51. I completely agree the current formula has issues that need to be addressed this year.
Absolutely. In other words, you are proposing to introduce some similar but different metric as an A factor. I question how that is useful. In the end, Helium DAO wants subDAOs to burn DC. That’s the final goal, and in a mature system, we would hope to have multiple networks burning large amounts of DC, and we would want to reward the different networks in a way that incentivizes them to burn as much DC as possible, and we don’t really care how they do it, as long as it’s sustainable. So the Utility Score proposed in HIP-80 considers DC Burn. As long as networks are pre-revenue, the Helium DAO wants to provide them a certain limited degree of launch funding. Both the HIP-51 and the HIP-80 Score functions do that. Both can be easily used (gamed, perhaps) to deliver more funding to a network than we might find appropriate. Right now we just have MOBILE and IOT to deal with, and we all believe in both to some extent.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Respectfully no, experts like this almost don't exist because anyone worth anything pursue there own projects. Ferebee is the best candidate
lol. wanna put money on that statement?
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Didn't Helium reach out to Tushar to write HIP51?
he a phd in tokenomics?
06:20
@gateholder nvm I didn't see the "almost" escape clause
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
yungthug
lol. wanna put money on that statement?
the Job you are describing is basically just a CFO, and yes they exist (this would be a specialist CFO) with a with either a consulting fee of a 7 digit number or high 6 figure salary or given a stake, but note the "almost" doesn't mean its not possible but the likelihood of making a mistake choosing a centralized person rather than using the wisdom of the crowd who are involved and have stake. the odds are not in favor of this, my odds would be a bout 9/1 meaning if we were to try 10 times only one would be a success
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
the Job you are describing is basically just a CFO, and yes they exist (this would be a specialist CFO) with a with either a consulting fee of a 7 digit number or high 6 figure salary or given a stake, but note the "almost" doesn't mean its not possible but the likelihood of making a mistake choosing a centralized person rather than using the wisdom of the crowd who are involved and have stake. the odds are not in favor of this, my odds would be a bout 9/1 meaning if we were to try 10 times only one would be a success
yup they aren't easy to find, but much smaller projects have found some really smart tokenomics guys
Avatar
Avatar
yungthug
yup they aren't easy to find, but much smaller projects have found some really smart tokenomics guys
right but most of those haven't been PHD's I have grown wary of them.
🙄 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
right but most of those haven't been PHD's I have grown wary of them.
Mark Ballandies @ onocoy is phd, and hes the real deal. Very talented
Avatar
Avatar
yungthug
Mark Ballandies @ onocoy is phd, and hes the real deal. Very talented
sure not saying there aren't good ones just doing some table math tells me not to put faith in that statistic
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
sure not saying there aren't good ones just doing some table math tells me not to put faith in that statistic
I just think its worth trying. We die without good tokenomics.
06:27
this whole last second shotgun approach with mud slingling makes people wary. If it all works out, great! But people look at helium and say, that is a retarded way to approach the heart of the project which is tokenomics
06:30
I think ethereum understood this well early on
06:31
and look where its at now
06:31
#2 after BTC
Avatar
Avatar
yungthug
I just think its worth trying. We die without good tokenomics.
right but I equate everything to business, and tokenomics is just like creating a MLM (no shade intended) you want to create a system that is both appealing to outsiders, but also self-fulfilling/ self funding to snowball/flywheel this also doesn't work if the product isn't appealing which is the main problem I am trying to solve, mobile has to get to a certain size to reach parity, and IOT needs a long runway, that is rather easy to solve algebraically, but that also involves a give and a take, I know 80 was contentious but in the end I think it was the right way (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yungthug
this whole last second shotgun approach with mud slingling makes people wary. If it all works out, great! But people look at helium and say, that is a retarded way to approach the heart of the project which is tokenomics
I agree totally
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
right but I equate everything to business, and tokenomics is just like creating a MLM (no shade intended) you want to create a system that is both appealing to outsiders, but also self-fulfilling/ self funding to snowball/flywheel this also doesn't work if the product isn't appealing which is the main problem I am trying to solve, mobile has to get to a certain size to reach parity, and IOT needs a long runway, that is rather easy to solve algebraically, but that also involves a give and a take, I know 80 was contentious but in the end I think it was the right way (edited)
tokenomics is the heart of every crypto project. Lets get it right
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I agree totally
yea thats why I was initially in favor of 81, but after speaking to some people who *make a living doing this and have skin in the helium game, they actually didn't mind 80 so I changed my vote. I think thats good news. Hopefully we get something down that is the best for all participants. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
yungthug
I think ethereum understood this well early on
yes they did, but looking at the history (I got my start mining eth in 2017) they did put forward something better and did solve some problems and they went against asics which were starting to dominate the mining world. to some degree they got lucky too IMO
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
yungthug
tokenomics is the heart of every crypto project. Lets get it right
also to be clear hip 51 is great, and would have worked awesomely if mobile had launched in 2022, and Solana merge happened sooner but I worry we are running out of time, and although I still think we can make it regardless bad scenarios exist and I was just trying to avoid them,
👎 2
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
also to be clear hip 51 is great, and would have worked awesomely if mobile had launched in 2022, and Solana merge happened sooner but I worry we are running out of time, and although I still think we can make it regardless bad scenarios exist and I was just trying to avoid them,
running out of time for...?
Avatar
Avatar
yungthug
running out of time for...?
for HIP 51 working as is but also IMO mobile now has a higher chance of failure and to be clear I don't think it will, but from what I know now I cant say i know it wont, but nova is holding some stuff back I hope really changes the game, I think they do but I cant bet on things I don't know
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
for HIP 51 working as is but also IMO mobile now has a higher chance of failure and to be clear I don't think it will, but from what I know now I cant say i know it wont, but nova is holding some stuff back I hope really changes the game, I think they do but I cant bet on things I don't know
I hear you. Maybe Nova can buy some time for the tokenomics to get sorted. I don't know, above my pay grade. I just want what is best as all of us do b/c helium is truly revolutionary.
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
the Job you are describing is basically just a CFO, and yes they exist (this would be a specialist CFO) with a with either a consulting fee of a 7 digit number or high 6 figure salary or given a stake, but note the "almost" doesn't mean its not possible but the likelihood of making a mistake choosing a centralized person rather than using the wisdom of the crowd who are involved and have stake. the odds are not in favor of this, my odds would be a bout 9/1 meaning if we were to try 10 times only one would be a success
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 7:03 AM
What percentage of CFOs do you think have PhDs?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What percentage of CFOs do you think have PhDs?
With actual PhDs not many but in my anecdotal experience most have masters degrees
Avatar
Hip 51 and hip 53 were voted and accepted. Isn't it enough to write a hip for mobile that will receive their payments from the beginning? Why are you trying to play with factor A and share ratios? What exactly is the point of doing this? How will it contribute?
Avatar
Avatar
Cari
Hip 51 and hip 53 were voted and accepted. Isn't it enough to write a hip for mobile that will receive their payments from the beginning? Why are you trying to play with factor A and share ratios? What exactly is the point of doing this? How will it contribute?
We may have learned things. It’s like electing US Presidents. Sometimes if one President is elected, we learn more about what that means over time, and we might decide we’d rather elect a different President than elect the same one again. Not all Presidents serve two terms. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What percentage of CFOs do you think have PhDs?
Aren't most CPA's?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
We may have learned things. It’s like electing US Presidents. Sometimes if one President is elected, we learn more about what that means over time, and we might decide we’d rather elect a different President than elect the same one again. Not all Presidents serve two terms. (edited)
I'm sure you understand the question I asked perfectly well, this answer does not absolve you of real responsibility. IoT is wanted to be seen as the stepchild of the US president. say it clearly
09:06
yours is more like a coup d'etat 6 months after the elections.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
With actual PhDs not many but in my anecdotal experience most have masters degrees
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 9:32 AM
So like people with masters in taxation or masters of public accounting? That’s an insanely large talent pool and industry trends point to a large talent exodus from traditional accounting and finance roles to tech. Sources : https://www.wsj.com/articles/accountants-salaries-are-rising-but-it-may-not-add-up-to-more-accountants-be01efb4 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-so-many-accountants-are-quitting-11672236016?reflink=integratedwebview_share (edited)
The salaries offered to U.S. accountants and auditors last year climbed at their quickest pace in recent years, but industry observers say increasing pay alone may not be enough to remedy a national shortage of accountants.
Wooing students to the field is tough; ‘Why pursue a much more difficult path?’
Avatar
Avatar
greenz
Aren't most CPA's?
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 9:37 AM
Yes
Avatar
Not sure what you mean by recieve their payments? A factor IMO doesn't incentivized the right behavior again just my opinion. But we have a problem I'm just trying to solve it
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
So like people with masters in taxation or masters of public accounting? That’s an insanely large talent pool and industry trends point to a large talent exodus from traditional accounting and finance roles to tech. Sources : https://www.wsj.com/articles/accountants-salaries-are-rising-but-it-may-not-add-up-to-more-accountants-be01efb4 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-so-many-accountants-are-quitting-11672236016?reflink=integratedwebview_share (edited)
Yes but it is very rare to find one with expertise in tokenomics, which was the substance of my main point. And most of those are going to either do there own project. Then you end up getting leftovers which sure there could be some diamonds in there but your taking a risk and centralizing that into one idea, which again could be good but IMO could be just as bad in general. In my experience they have not been good in general and PHD's in general have not been much better either. But again my main point is the blanket statement of "let's hire a PHD to solve our problems" is not nearly as simple as to do it and you have to understand some math about the percentile of talent you would have to attact in order to get success.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
Yes but it is very rare to find one with expertise in tokenomics, which was the substance of my main point. And most of those are going to either do there own project. Then you end up getting leftovers which sure there could be some diamonds in there but your taking a risk and centralizing that into one idea, which again could be good but IMO could be just as bad in general. In my experience they have not been good in general and PHD's in general have not been much better either. But again my main point is the blanket statement of "let's hire a PHD to solve our problems" is not nearly as simple as to do it and you have to understand some math about the percentile of talent you would have to attact in order to get success.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 10:26 AM
You’re conflating “tokenomics” with token incentives. Tokenomics is the way to make token moon and there’s plenty of partners and even associates at crypto VC funds that aren’t weathering the downturn that could come in and serve in that role. What we actually need is the token incentives side which is analogous to tax incentives since the tax code is just a way for the federal government to get you to do things it’s wants you do (like invest in R&D or renewables for examples) in exchange for more of the money they invented. (edited)
👆 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 10:35 AM
If we want to talk about percentile of talent, the Big 4 hires ~2.5% of applicants so I think we can agree those people are are pretty good from a talent perspective. There are crypto consulting firms that exist today that have lured people from those firms to work in both tokenomics and incentives. By nature of their early career path much of that talent is generally risk averse and even those that jump into crypto shy away from the exposure potential of running their own project so that niche in the talent pool definitely exists. Perhaps, since you aren’t impressed with the work PhDs in economics or game theory have done, they arent up to your standards but the talent pool exists. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You’re conflating “tokenomics” with token incentives. Tokenomics is the way to make token moon and there’s plenty of partners and even associates at crypto VC funds that aren’t weathering the downturn that could come in and serve in that role. What we actually need is the token incentives side which is analogous to tax incentives since the tax code is just a way for the federal government to get you to do things it’s wants you do (like invest in R&D or renewables for examples) in exchange for more of the money they invented. (edited)
Tokenomics I view as all encompassing some might have a different view and try to separate them but it would be hard to effect one without effecting the other. If your pointing to tax incentives for renewables as a "good point" then we are doomed, we don't have chance to compete if we implement government level efficiency, are you really proposing we use the government incentive model?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 10:58 AM
I was giving examples of provisions in the tax code that lay people would understand.
Avatar
Well, in that case Gate the incentive system seems to be working but the end results could have been better 🙂
10:59
That's part of the reason I think Market-Based systems should be in charge of determining valuation.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
If we want to talk about percentile of talent, the Big 4 hires ~2.5% of applicants so I think we can agree those people are are pretty good from a talent perspective. There are crypto consulting firms that exist today that have lured people from those firms to work in both tokenomics and incentives. By nature of their early career path much of that talent is generally risk averse and even those that jump into crypto shy away from the exposure potential of running their own project so that niche in the talent pool definitely exists. Perhaps, since you aren’t impressed with the work PhDs in economics or game theory have done, they arent up to your standards but the talent pool exists. (edited)
well when talking about about hiring percentiles by my estimation we would need a .1% level talent give or take,
Avatar
the incentive of the individual must align with what you want them to do to have a successful incentive model.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
well when talking about about hiring percentiles by my estimation we would need a .1% level talent give or take,
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:01 AM
lol. then yes, we agree
Avatar
There were huge inefficiencies with Helium IoT's PoC very early on - because there was incentivize misalignment between a hotspot owner (who just wanted HNT in their wallet) and the Helium ecosystem (who wanted to reward those providing coverage)
11:01
Cracks in the system could be exploited, and that's exactly what happened
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:01 AM
“If you aren’t the top 0.1% in your field don’t even bother applying, you idiot”
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
“If you aren’t the top 0.1% in your field don’t even bother applying, you idiot”
you forgot the "for $15/hr" that's usually attached to ads like that
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:03 AM
The options are the top 0.1% of crypto minds or Ferebee. No in between
😂 1
Avatar
I mean Ferebee has been pretty good thus far, despite my disagreeing with him on 80.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Well, in that case Gate the incentive system seems to be working but the end results could have been better 🙂
in 2015 I might have agreed that the solar programs (some) where successful, however now, I can buy new solar for .25 per watt but to get installed costs 5-7 which is insane and the government has created that environment , but also now several projects have wasted the resources given to them and been used and abused. but i digress
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:05 AM
I went to a pizzeria where the guy who puts the pepperonis on the pizza was between top 0.2% and top 0.5% and it was the worst pizza I’d ever had.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
in 2015 I might have agreed that the solar programs (some) where successful, however now, I can buy new solar for .25 per watt but to get installed costs 5-7 which is insane and the government has created that environment , but also now several projects have wasted the resources given to them and been used and abused. but i digress
One could say the same about College loans as well 🙂 You and I agree that centralized planning doesn't work in the long term - for some reason we don't on 80/81.... Not sure why really.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
in 2015 I might have agreed that the solar programs (some) where successful, however now, I can buy new solar for .25 per watt but to get installed costs 5-7 which is insane and the government has created that environment , but also now several projects have wasted the resources given to them and been used and abused. but i digress
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:06 AM
This is a nonsensical line of discussion. I’ve already said I used tax credits for renewables as an example of tax incentives that lay people would be familiar with.
Avatar
The problem is that market based systems are often-times brutal and have the feeling of being "unfair", which seems to me to be the heart of why HIP80 exists. The key is to properly align your goals (which is to provide good coverage in high value locations) with incentive systems that can dynamically reduce exploitation. Which is harnessing the power of markets (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
This is a nonsensical line of discussion. I’ve already said I used tax credits for renewables as an example of tax incentives that lay people would be familiar with.
right but it proves the folly of centralized control, it can make certain right decisions in the short term, but in the end they will hold the course and not listen to new information. and yes that applies to me and everyone, no one is right all the time the big 4 have been figuring this out the hard way you can't follow even the best leaders blindly and any government model worst of all.
Avatar
It seems we're getting way off-topic here.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
right but it proves the folly of centralized control, it can make certain right decisions in the short term, but in the end they will hold the course and not listen to new information. and yes that applies to me and everyone, no one is right all the time the big 4 have been figuring this out the hard way you can't follow even the best leaders blindly and any government model worst of all.
Gate, if you don't like centralized control, why did you support HIP80? It was the definition of it.
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
right but it proves the folly of centralized control, it can make certain right decisions in the short term, but in the end they will hold the course and not listen to new information. and yes that applies to me and everyone, no one is right all the time the big 4 have been figuring this out the hard way you can't follow even the best leaders blindly and any government model worst of all.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:11 AM
They have? What do you mean by that statement about figuring it out the hard way?
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
It seems we're getting way off-topic here.
the "getting" part was 2 pages ago 🤭
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Siegfried
It seems we're getting way off-topic here.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:13 AM
Dead HIP, now im just trying to understand gateholder’s position here
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Gate, if you don't like centralized control, why did you support HIP80? It was the definition of it.
how is 80 centralized control?
Avatar
It puts in price floors and deadens the V score with a square root.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:15 AM
There is gif from Billy Madison I would like to post but I promised Keenan I would be nicer
🙏 1
😆 1
Avatar
the algorithm is saying, we like the IoT network more, so we're going to give it a handout of 50,000USD DC burn every epoch...... And while we're at it lets go ahead and reduce the impact of veHNT valuation's by square rooting their contribution
11:18
Oh and BTW we'll toss a cookie to the MOBILE network by not having them pay a little fee so we can drag down investment for 4 years.....
11:19
Definition of Centralized Control
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
It puts in price floors and deadens the V score with a square root.
yes to the sqrt v more people agreed on that singular topic, but the floors (for data flow) where a tool to maximize growth with a expiration date. which allowed for better overall health of helium there is no centralized control
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Oh and BTW we'll toss a cookie to the MOBILE network by not having them pay a little fee so we can drag down investment for 4 years.....
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:21 AM
To be fair, I was impressed at the attempt at a stealth bailout.
11:21
I joke about giving myself HNT as a provision of large HIPs. Gotta applaud people who come up with creative ways to do it and actually put it up for vote (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
yes to the sqrt v more people agreed on that singular topic, but the floors (for data flow) where a tool to maximize growth with a expiration date. which allowed for better overall health of helium there is no centralized control
Gate, your last sentence is a contradiction man, you're saying a centralized committee has determined that these floors would allow for the "better overall health of Helium", and then say that there is no centralized control. Those two cannot exist
👆 1
11:24
The A score from HIP51 protects the Helium IoT Network without the need of a price floor because it takes into account the "installed base" of a network's infrastructure. I don't think a floor is needed. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
yes to the sqrt v more people agreed on that singular topic, but the floors (for data flow) where a tool to maximize growth with a expiration date. which allowed for better overall health of helium there is no centralized control
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:24 AM
The person who suggested the square root has since retracted his belief that square root is the correct mechanism and is looking into different exponents
Avatar
multiverse_Elmo 04/17/2023 11:48 AM
Is this a good time to propose discussion around an HNT reverse split?
😂 2
🇳 1
🇴 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
The A score from HIP51 protects the Helium IoT Network without the need of a price floor because it takes into account the "installed base" of a network's infrastructure. I don't think a floor is needed. (edited)
Hans, I think your definition of “centralized control” is a bit backwards. The Floor parameters of HIP-80 were proposed, and then they were accepted or rejected by decentralized control. As it happens, rejected. Helium governance is, in fact, decentralized, as you can see from the fact that none of the actual whale wallets voted. Centralized control could just decide to pay Max the 10,000 HNT he deserves and be done with it. No need for a vote. With centralized control, HNT emissions to subDAOs could just be arbitrarily decided on a day-to-day basis. The challenge is designing rules that govern them by decentralized control in a way that achieves our various goals. It looks like we still have work to do there.
💯 2
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 11:56 AM
What is a whale? Plenty of votes of over 100,000 HNT and even 500,000 HNT came through
11:59
I think we can all agree, Helium deserves a person who can rewrite the US tax code and all of its intricacies to figure out its token incentives and anyone less than a nobel laureate is frankly not good enough.
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Hans, I think your definition of “centralized control” is a bit backwards. The Floor parameters of HIP-80 were proposed, and then they were accepted or rejected by decentralized control. As it happens, rejected. Helium governance is, in fact, decentralized, as you can see from the fact that none of the actual whale wallets voted. Centralized control could just decide to pay Max the 10,000 HNT he deserves and be done with it. No need for a vote. With centralized control, HNT emissions to subDAOs could just be arbitrarily decided on a day-to-day basis. The challenge is designing rules that govern them by decentralized control in a way that achieves our various goals. It looks like we still have work to do there.
It's control by politics/committee/vote and not by markets - they are different principles entirely. One is marred by politics, self interest and bureaucracy and cannot dynamically respond on the fly. There are issues that surround markets like externalities and misaligned incentives, but a proper system can mitigate them.
Avatar
Endless fun can be had defining Helium Whales. Over 2% of circulating supply maybe? I was referring to accounts who, by voting, call the decentralized nature of Helium governance into question.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Hans, I think your definition of “centralized control” is a bit backwards. The Floor parameters of HIP-80 were proposed, and then they were accepted or rejected by decentralized control. As it happens, rejected. Helium governance is, in fact, decentralized, as you can see from the fact that none of the actual whale wallets voted. Centralized control could just decide to pay Max the 10,000 HNT he deserves and be done with it. No need for a vote. With centralized control, HNT emissions to subDAOs could just be arbitrarily decided on a day-to-day basis. The challenge is designing rules that govern them by decentralized control in a way that achieves our various goals. It looks like we still have work to do there.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:02 PM
I'm not picky. I'll accept the 10,000 HNT and compromise on the vote part. Write up the "Give Max 10,000 HNT" HIP and i'll endorse it
Avatar
Please do not conflate my dislike for the DAO score proposed in HIP80 with me calling into question Helium governance's decentralization. They aren't the same. A DAO score can both rely on centralized principles while relying a decentralized methods (like voting) to get passed.
12:09
Overall though, HIP78 sounds like a decent proposal. Marrying HIP78 with 81 sounds like a good first step.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Please do not conflate my dislike for the DAO score proposed in HIP80 with me calling into question Helium governance's decentralization. They aren't the same. A DAO score can both rely on centralized principles while relying a decentralized methods (like voting) to get passed.
Well, that’s actually my point. HIP-80 does not rely on centralized principles. It proposes rules which would be applied in a decentralized manner, i. e., “fairly”, not in a centralized manner, i. e., by fiat.
12:10
Other rules are possible. The rules of HIP-51 aren’t any more or less centralized.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:10 PM
The HIP-81 authors are happy to work with the HIP-78 authors
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Endless fun can be had defining Helium Whales. Over 2% of circulating supply maybe? I was referring to accounts who, by voting, call the decentralized nature of Helium governance into question.
that would make < 10 whales.
Avatar
HIP-51 harnesses markets to determine a subDAO's value. HIP80 turns around and artificially protects one subDAO over the other because a committee thinks it's important to do so.
12:12
Every subDAO should be treated fairly.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
HIP-51 harnesses markets to determine a subDAO's value. HIP80 turns around and artificially protects one subDAO over the other because a committee thinks it's important to do so.
Both HIP-80 and HIP-51 trivially give a pre-revenue subDAO 10–15% of emissions. That has nothing to do with centralization vs. decentralization. (Again, pre V factor, which holds for all of this and is a separate discussion.) (edited)
12:16
(To match the floor of HIP-80, you just need to burn $2,500 of onboarding under HIP-51. Same deal.)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Gate, your last sentence is a contradiction man, you're saying a centralized committee has determined that these floors would allow for the "better overall health of Helium", and then say that there is no centralized control. Those two cannot exist
the committee is taking in from the community i have had lots of discussions with community members and this is the solution most wanted, to be clear I want many of the to converse this in public, but I think the rhetoric got in the way. really had the most community engagement I have ever seen but it is contentious I realize that, im willing to take suggestions or even look into different options but if you ask me to build and modify something don't be mad I tried
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:18 PM
there's a committee?
12:19
is tushar on the committee?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
there's a committee?
working groups or at least authors of hips committee interchangeable IMO (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:20 PM
so a group chat of people who agree with each other, agreed with eachother?
12:20
holy shit, that changes everything (edited)
🔥 2
Avatar
I find that in group chats, often people have different opinions. Quite often, after all the opinions are explained and discussed, consensus emerges
🍓 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:27 PM
We must be going on different internets because I don't think anyone has ever changed their opinion based on an argument over the internet
👎 1
Avatar
I mean Ferebee kinda did after saying he wanted to merge 78 and 81
12:29
Maybe not his opinion, but ability to compromise
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We must be going on different internets because I don't think anyone has ever changed their opinion based on an argument over the internet
me and @ferebee had wildly different opinions and we met and came to consensus
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
me and @ferebee had wildly different opinions and we met and came to consensus
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:29 PM
And then the community as a whole agree with it?
Avatar
just gonna say i wish voice chat was utilized more.
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
just gonna say i wish voice chat was utilized more.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:30 PM
I miss the old days of 24 hour voice chat
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I miss the old days of 24 hour voice chat
a lot of nonsense talk but sometimes some good stuff came out of it!
Avatar
Avatar
Keenan
just gonna say i wish voice chat was utilized more.
Yeah you'd be surprised how having a human connection can change things
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
And then the community as a whole agree with it?
A community isn't a singular actor. Getting literally everyone to agree with something is an almost impossible endeavour.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Yeah you'd be surprised how having a human connection can change things
its much harder to be rude on voice haha
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:31 PM
but surely 67% of them did
12:31
or 51% in discord
Avatar
I would say getting over 60% consensus is difficult to be honest
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:32 PM
historically the votes have not gone that way, they are pretty lopsided
Avatar
realize that to reach 2/3 majority effectively doubles the voting power of no
😄 1
Avatar
Does HIP51 give 15% emissions to new subDAO's that are non-revenue generating? If so, how?
Avatar
I’ve had lots of good, productive, heated arguments over text chat. Some people are not very good at text chat. I’m certainly not much good at voice chat, I find it difficult to focus.
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
realize that to reach 2/3 majority effectively doubles the voting power of no
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:33 PM
Sounds like that might be a tricky way to remove bad acting subDAOs then (edited)
Avatar
As the network grows it may be prudent to think if the 66% rule is too high.
12:34
I know it worked out in my favor this time.... but I don't want Helium to become frozen politically in the future.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:35 PM
a HIP that failed a temp check got like 63%. 66% is an incredibly low barrier
12:35
even with fake accounts it still failed
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Does HIP51 give 15% emissions to new subDAO's that are non-revenue generating? If so, how?
Oh, sure. Just like the “7” floor in HIP-81 gives a fresh subDAO a total DAO Utility Score of 7, and thus about 13% of emissions, you can start a new subDAO and give it a Score of 7 under HIP-51 by burning $2,500 of onboarding fees. Not really much different. If you burn some DC, you can actually take the subDAO higher under HIP-51 quite easily.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I’ve had lots of good, productive, heated arguments over text chat. Some people are not very good at text chat. I’m certainly not much good at voice chat, I find it difficult to focus.
right I just listen back to the call where I at least feel like i called you out on hip 80 I was fairly aggressive, but do feel like I was at least respectful ?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Oh, sure. Just like the “7” floor in HIP-81 gives a fresh subDAO a total DAO Utility Score of 7, and thus about 13% of emissions, you can start a new subDAO and give it a Score of 7 under HIP-51 by burning $2,500 of onboarding fees. Not really much different. If you burn some DC, you can actually take the subDAO higher under HIP-51 quite easily.
But, veHNT holders certainly wouldn't stake their shares into a brand new subDAO?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:37 PM
HIP-80 is dead anyway, I wanna know if we can find a nobel laureate to write the next one
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Oh, sure. Just like the “7” floor in HIP-81 gives a fresh subDAO a total DAO Utility Score of 7, and thus about 13% of emissions, you can start a new subDAO and give it a Score of 7 under HIP-51 by burning $2,500 of onboarding fees. Not really much different. If you burn some DC, you can actually take the subDAO higher under HIP-51 quite easily.
lol I pointed that out a long time ago thank you for the validation coolcry
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
But, veHNT holders certainly wouldn't stake their shares into a brand new subDAO?
ya it would be unlikely it would attract some interest I am sure but if you don't get a good chunk of that pie then it would more than likely hover in the 1-5% range
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
But, veHNT holders certainly wouldn't stake their shares into a brand new subDAO?
If veHNT holders stake the way we think they should, we’re always just fine. The question would be, what if somebody launches a trash subDAO, burns say $2,500 in onboarding, and then just collects the DNT emissions, including the 6% that go to the veHNT stake. If it’s all a sham, they can collect it all, swap it to HNT, and be done. So you might need a solid chunk of veHNT, but you could game that sweet 13% of HNT emissions for a while, so perhaps it’s worth it?
12:39
Nobody can slash the HNT of the trash veHNT staker, at least not according to current rules.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:40 PM
absolutely no way we should slash anything other than subdao treasury funds
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
lol I pointed that out a long time ago thank you for the validation coolcry
We’ve both been saying that for a while. It bears repeating.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
absolutely no way we should slash anything other than subdao treasury funds
Right. So this “trash subDAO” gaming vector exists both under HIP-80 and under HIP-51.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:41 PM
just make the fourth root and square root
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If veHNT holders stake the way we think they should, we’re always just fine. The question would be, what if somebody launches a trash subDAO, burns say $2,500 in onboarding, and then just collects the DNT emissions, including the 6% that go to the veHNT stake. If it’s all a sham, they can collect it all, swap it to HNT, and be done. So you might need a solid chunk of veHNT, but you could game that sweet 13% of HNT emissions for a while, so perhaps it’s worth it?
that why I like the pooling method for new subDAO's it creates a bag and would take to long to fill before it would most likly get caught then slashed/burned etc
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:41 PM
or make the A based on total onboards
12:41
plenty of other methods
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
that why I like the pooling method for new subDAO's it creates a bag and would take to long to fill before it would most likly get caught then slashed/burned etc
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:42 PM
No one will join that ecosystem if you can only pay for data using HNT but can't redeem your DNTs for HNT
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
plenty of other methods
There sure are. Most of them are shit. Just like, from a gaming perspective, HIP-80 is shit and HIP-51 is also shit.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No one will join that ecosystem if you can only pay for data using HNT but can't redeem your DNTs for HNT
you would be able to after a sufficient amount of time and it also has the benefit of bring the score to a certain level before transactions could occur I really have a hard time seeing downsides to doing this but open to suggestions
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:44 PM
its just as easy to game and creates a higher barrier of entry to new participants. its actually the worst of both worlds
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
There sure are. Most of them are shit. Just like, from a gaming perspective, HIP-80 is shit and HIP-51 is also shit.
80 is just a shit with a cherry on top 😂
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:45 PM
well i'm glad we rushed it to a vote
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
80 is just a shit with a cherry on top 😂
That’s not wrong.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That’s not wrong.
joke???
12:45
hence one of the short falls of text
Avatar
As the network becomes larger it would become more difficult to create these fake exploiting subDAOs
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:46 PM
yea but i'd just exploit it with the third and fourth subdao, sell my tokens and move on
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
As the network becomes larger it would become more difficult to create these fake exploiting subDAOs
also as more subDAO's join the floor effect becomes less pronounced
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
well i'm glad we rushed it to a vote
HIP-81 is shit too, from a gaming perspective, in case that got lost somewhere. Solving the problem of possible future subDAOs gaming the Utility Score was not a defined goal of HIP-51, HIP-80 or HIP-81. So it’s not too surprising that none of those HIPs solves that problem.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:47 PM
HIP 81 defined rules for onboarding
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
As the network becomes larger it would become more difficult to create these fake exploiting subDAOs
The question is whether we will all vote in an exploitative subDAO, and then not vote it out. That’s a valid question, definitely.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:47 PM
its not an anti-gaming HIP and doesn't intend to be
12:48
the whole point of 81 was to buy time for a technical implementation to allow onboarding of other devices
12:48
Given HIP 80 Emissions Calculation MOBILE,IOT veHNT Delegated, 1,000,000 , veHNT ,1,000,000 Floor, 7 ,Floor,40 GB Burned Per Month,0.5 price/GB, $ 0.50 Helium MOBILE subscribers, 36,000 ,9000 DC Burn Month,9,000,DC Burn Month, $ 1,500.00 USD Burn Per Epoch,300,USD Burn per Epoch,50 D score,...
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
its not an anti-gaming HIP and doesn't intend to be
Then why do you attack other proposals because they don’t solve for exploitative subDAOs either? Serious question.
Avatar
The issue of creating subDAO's that exploit the DAO score is a serious one that I don't think has been completely mitigated.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Then why do you attack other proposals because they don’t solve for exploitative subDAOs either? Serious question.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:52 PM
Oh you must have missed my rants about HIP-51 comparing it to Enron and chuck e cheese tickets (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
The issue of creating subDAO's that exploit the DAO score is a serious one that I don't think has been completely mitigated.
It hasn’t been mitigated in the slightest. No mitigation has been attempted yet, that I know of…
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:52 PM
just because that one sucked, doesn't mean this one isn't worse
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh you must have missed my rants about HIP-51 comparing it to Enron and chuck e cheese tickets (edited)
If you were instated as king today Max, what would you do?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:53 PM
I would pay people to write these HIPs instead of relying on volunteers
👑 1
Avatar
Most consultants are idiots
👆 1
12:53
in my experience
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:54 PM
it could be the same people but if they are being paid they can be held to a higher standard
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
The issue of creating subDAO's that exploit the DAO score is a serious one that I don't think has been completely mitigated.
to be honest i think we have to build in auditing to their creation HIP I don't think programmatically it can be solved because you can just always build a machine to counter what ever you do...
👆 1
Avatar
Most of the time once they collect their check they run off into the distance with a smile on their face.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
to be honest i think we have to build in auditing to their creation HIP I don't think programmatically it can be solved because you can just always build a machine to counter what ever you do...
This.
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
to be honest i think we have to build in auditing to their creation HIP I don't think programmatically it can be solved because you can just always build a machine to counter what ever you do...
Yes, this may be accurate. Or at least one component.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
This.
also IMO paying a 3rd party to audit would be cheaper than having a 10% tax on equipment, given the mobile example it is literally being done with CPI (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
also IMO paying a 3rd party to audit would be cheaper than having a 10% tax on equipment, given the mobile example it is literally being done with CPI (edited)
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:57 PM
one is revenue and the other is an expense so no this is false (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Yes, this may be accurate. Or at least one component.
sure a multi facet approach is best you never want to one group holding the keys
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 12:59 PM
so like lets say im pizza hut. which results in me having more money? receiving a franchise fee or paying auditors?
Avatar
So the question I have, is there a way to make the squeeze more expensive than the juice 🙂 for DAO Score exploitation. (edited)
12:59
Max says slashing is out of the question....
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:00 PM
yes, you have 10% of the revenue from DC burn accrue to Helium DAO. You remove the fourth root from the A score
13:00
you just have to make it so $1 in is less than $1 out
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
also IMO paying a 3rd party to audit would be cheaper than having a 10% tax on equipment, given the mobile example it is literally being done with CPI (edited)
Ah, well to be clear I don’t agree that new subDAOs should be submitted to audits by external firms. My thought was that each new subDAO could have additional performance metrics set based on its value proposition, which would put governors on their HNT emissions. So maybe we disagree rather than agree. 😄
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:01 PM
Also, "fuck off your auditors are taking too long, we'll make our own token."
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Ah, well to be clear I don’t agree that new subDAOs should be submitted to audits by external firms. My thought was that each new subDAO could have additional performance metrics set based on its value proposition, which would put governors on their HNT emissions. So maybe we disagree rather than agree. 😄
What other ideas for performance metrics do you have in mind?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
yes, you have 10% of the revenue from DC burn accrue to Helium DAO. You remove the fourth root from the A score
Helium DAO? where does this revenue go again? the subDAO treasury?
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Ah, well to be clear I don’t agree that new subDAOs should be submitted to audits by external firms. My thought was that each new subDAO could have additional performance metrics set based on its value proposition, which would put governors on their HNT emissions. So maybe we disagree rather than agree. 😄
hmm curious on that reasoning, I think 3rd party could also have lots of meaning ideally it would be community driven but be well defined as impartial I usually take the stance of adversarial come up with the best reuslts but I could be persuaded with something else?
Avatar
You know what would be nice?.... If ChatGPT summarized these chats lol 🙂
😆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Helium DAO? where does this revenue go again? the subDAO treasury?
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:06 PM
Helium DAO being the overall network that is governed by HNT. I think you'd just have to burn $1.1 for every $1 of data
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
What other ideas for performance metrics do you have in mind?
I don’t, yet. It would depend on the subDAO. Neil has suggested we might want to have a Mapping subDAO. That sounds interesting. OTOH to the degree that it just maps LoRa and 5G coverage, it seems unlikely that it has similar revenue potential as the data networks themselves. And the target total investment for a full deployment might be much lower, too. So perhaps it would make sense to give it a smaller initial share of emissions. Just an example.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
hmm curious on that reasoning, I think 3rd party could also have lots of meaning ideally it would be community driven but be well defined as impartial I usually take the stance of adversarial come up with the best reuslts but I could be persuaded with something else?
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:07 PM
You just said Deloitte isn't good enough like 2 hours ago. Now you want everything in the hands of a midmarket firm thats desperate enough to take on the compliance issues that come along with auditing crypto?
13:08
No audit firm wants to audit anything to do with crypto. The best they'll do is put a meaningless stamp of approval under their advisory practice
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
You just said Deloitte isn't good enough like 2 hours ago. Now you want everything in the hands of a midmarket firm thats desperate enough to take on the compliance issues that come along with auditing crypto?
auditing isn't hard figuring out nuclear fusion is very hard (or in this case building a self correcting programmatic reward engine from scratch)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Helium DAO being the overall network that is governed by HNT. I think you'd just have to burn $1.1 for every $1 of data
So are you trying to protect against the exploit of using excess data to artificially receive more emissions?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:10 PM
yes
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I don’t, yet. It would depend on the subDAO. Neil has suggested we might want to have a Mapping subDAO. That sounds interesting. OTOH to the degree that it just maps LoRa and 5G coverage, it seems unlikely that it has similar revenue potential as the data networks themselves. And the target total investment for a full deployment might be much lower, too. So perhaps it would make sense to give it a smaller initial share of emissions. Just an example.
That would only verify subDAOs already approved but there may be new technologies or subDAOs that don't rely on signals.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
auditing isn't hard figuring out nuclear fusion is very hard (or in this case building a self correcting programmatic reward engine from scratch)
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:12 PM
I actually don't think the audit fees are cheaper than the onboarding fee either. Especially when you consider a bootstrapped network by definition is undercapitalized and if they could afford things like auditors they wouldn't be going the web 3 route
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
That would only verify subDAOs already approved but there may be new technologies or subDAOs that don't rely on signals.
ya but you would have to tailor something to that example, and off hand I cant think of one
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
That would only verify subDAOs already approved but there may be new technologies or subDAOs that don't rely on signals.
No, I was talking about how if “Mappers” is a proposed new subDAO, we limit emissions so as not to pay more for buildout than it needs. A difficult concept, for sure.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:12 PM
its much more efficient to have the miners pay that fee than the centralized governing body to pay auditors
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
No, I was talking about how if “Mappers” is a proposed new subDAO, we limit emissions so as not to pay more for buildout than it needs. A difficult concept, for sure.
I see. I was under the impression that they were under the different subDAO trees and not it's own
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I see. I was under the impression that they were under the different subDAO trees and not it's own
No Mappers subDAO exists yet. The Mappers subDAO and the Dabba subDAO are just the only real examples I know of, of subDAOs currently under discussion.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
its much more efficient to have the miners pay that fee than the centralized governing body to pay auditors
Auditors would be supposed to protect against gaming, no? We already know that onboarding fees don’t protect against gaming.
👍 1
💯 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:15 PM
it protects against gaming more than removing it completely does
13:16
condoms are less effective than abstinence
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
it protects against gaming more than removing it completely does
Sorry, we just finished discussing how onboarding fees don’t protect against gaming. Not going there again.
👎 1
Avatar
Lets take it back a notch. What is the absolute most important thing that Helium is trying to incentivize? It should be DC burn, correct?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:18 PM
yes
Avatar
But the issue we don't just use that is that it's too easy to exploit?
Avatar
Interestingly, HIP-51 specifies that Helium DAO may slash a subDAO for inflating its A factor (onboarding fee calculation via “active” Hotspots). It doesn’t specify what to do about inflated DC Burn. And that’s hard, because it could be “real” DC Burn.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:21 PM
the a score increases the demand for HNT which in turn creates demand for devices that earn HNT
❔ 1
Avatar
Thats uhhh kinda the definition of a Ponzi.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:22 PM
manufacturers buy HNT to burn HNT to onboard. All things being equal, price increases as a result of that buy and burn
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 04/17/2023 1:22 PM
No discussions on buying or selling HNT please!
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:22 PM
its a ponzi if there's no other reason to buy the token
13:22
its just one of the revenue streams
Avatar
I mean, I always thought the A score was a recognition and a reward of a network's deployed hardware base.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:23 PM
the A score does many things
13:24
the reason you reward the hardware that is being deployed is for the above reason
Avatar
So the IoT network has millions of dollars of network installed, ergo it's given a larger share of emissions because it's a stable already deployed network
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:24 PM
correct
Avatar
so we should reward that,
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:24 PM
i mean yes but already agreed on this
👍 1
13:26
think of it like a franchise fee
Avatar
Hmmm, I'd like to see some example of how an exploit subDAO would work - using models. I didn't see them receiving lots of emissions personally.
13:26
Also, currently you can't just spin up a subDAO without a vote.
13:27
So that may be an issue long-term
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Also, currently you can't just spin up a subDAO without a vote.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:27 PM
According to HIP-51 you can
Avatar
Well, that's probably not a good idea
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:27 PM
you submit an application as a HIP then veHNT voters vote
Avatar
I don't like that
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:28 PM
you just shift the responsibility somewhere else
13:28
who decides? how can they be influenced, etc
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
According to HIP-51 you can
Where does it say that?
13:30
The subDAO would have to submit a HIP, and it would have to be voted on.
👍 1
13:30
Otherwise the subDAO doesn’t even exist.
Avatar
I like this way better
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
you submit an application as a HIP then veHNT voters vote
That is a vote, isn’t it?
Avatar
Oh I thought Max meant veHNT stakers vote by staking their HNT into a subDAO treasury
13:32
It's binary... not a spectrum. A spectrum could allow 3-5% emissions.
Avatar
A new subDAO would need to be introduced through a HIP, which would specify things like its subDAO token, its purpose, its definition of a “Hotspot” a. k. a. Device. Under HIP-51, that’s relevant to the A factor. I think it would be hard to get a 67% YES vote on a subDAO if people don’t clearly understand what it’s going to do. HIP-51 had tailwinds, as the market had shown a lot of excitement over Helium 5G. But even that took work. HIP-37 failed.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The subDAO would have to submit a HIP, and it would have to be voted on.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:37 PM
That’s what I said
13:38
Oh I misread what Hans said
👍 1
Avatar
How is that “spin up a subDAO without a vote”?
13:38
Ah.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:38 PM
I thought he said with a vote. My bad
Avatar
So I came on here two hours ago. Have we seen any suggestions that bring us closer to a useful DAO Utility Score? Let alone one that solves the problem of the missing MOBILE onboarding fees?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:40 PM
One is easier to solve than the other
13:41
But yes, I suggested the HIP-81 authors and HIP-78 authors work together to create a solution
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So I came on here two hours ago. Have we seen any suggestions that bring us closer to a useful DAO Utility Score? Let alone one that solves the problem of the missing MOBILE onboarding fees?
I feel like this is the first productive conversation I've had where everyone concern's were cogently explained, to start
13:42
I'm not certain I've seen explicit examples where a subDAO exploit could made.
13:43
Yes, there are issues where theoretical exploits could exist, but none that have been modeled.
13:44
The HIP78/81 AKA HIP82 draft seems to be outside of the scope of the conversation with DAO score Exploits
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
But yes, I suggested the HIP-81 authors and HIP-78 authors work together to create a solution
I’m the author of HIP-78. My last suggestion was that you integrate points you consider useful into a new HIP. In my view, those are, in particular, the final Clarifications (relating to Data Transfer payments) and the points about Location Assertion fees. And I pointed out a few items that I see as problematic in HIP-81. If you like, why don’t you state how you feel about the additions I proposed, and how you feel about the questions I have with HIP-81 as it stands? https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1090658818574270564/1097251260895334550
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
The HIP78/81 AKA HIP82 draft seems to be outside of the scope of the conversation with DAO score Exploits
That’s my view as well. Gaming by a potential adversarial subDAO is a valid question that will need to be dealt with in advance of any new subDAO joining. Currently we are protected, to some degree, by the fact that some of us believe capcom loves LoRa, and the obvious fact that Nova and T-Mobile have a lot riding on Helium 5G. For new subDAOs, that won’t be the case. But it’s also outside the original scope of HIP-78, HIP-80, and HIP-81 as I see it.
🍓 1
13:48
(Sorry, @Hans, I gotta ask. Cultural divide, maybe. What do you mean when you react with a strawberry emoji?)
Avatar
It's a masculine way to heart emoji
🤣 1
Avatar
I have heard you are from Germany - my cultural heritage as well BTW.
Avatar
Frankfurt, world’s smallest Metropolis. (Born in La Jolla though…)
13:50
Though Horace Dediu rags me for that and says, Helsinki is the world’s smallest metropolis.
Avatar
Beautiful city I have been there many times for the airport. Family is from a suburb of Hanover.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
So I don’t have changes ready. But I read through HIP-81 again, and here are some things that I don’t find fully clear. Formula The formula states a product (device count times fee), but the text describes a sum of fees, which, as suggested elsewhere, may vary a great deal. This is already an issue in HIP-51, which does not clearly include the onboarding fees of Data Only Hotspots. Slashing Slashing is a dangerous thing. Who is given the authority to perform slashing on 1 August for missing onboarding fees, if the conditions specified are met? That is, who decides whether they have been met? Who holds the keys? Example idea: Perhaps we could have a safer procedure with a smart contract that would slash just a certain percentage of fresh emissions until the deficit is covered? Grace Period The A factor of MOBILE counts all Hotspots that were active during the last 30 days, including FreedomFi Hotspots with no radios, which have only ever participated in IOT, and even ones that are located outside the US. Is that intentional? Grace Period How is the “onboarding fee debt” of MOBILE calculated? Does it take into account all MOBILE Hotspots that were ever active, or just those active within the last 30 days of July?
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:50 PM
- This will be updated to total onboard fee of on line devices when the ability to do so exists. - We can give Helium Foundation the one time ability as granted by the HIP to slash the subDAO treasury fund in this one instance. No different than giving them the ability to control mobile emissions in the short term. -Yes this is intentional, it’s a better proxy value for the number of radios and their assumed onboard fees. It’s not perfect but Noah requested an onchain way of counting devices. - All mobile gateways to be counted during the grace period. The grace period could also end prior to August 1 depending on the engineering timeline
13:51
can update the HIP to make those pieces less ambiguous
Avatar
Max, what is your opinion of using a Activation pool instead of a fee? using a pool would allow for different devices with different fees to coexist.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:52 PM
You allow dead subdaos to continue to earn in that scenario
Avatar
well I mean (number of active devices x activation Pool)
13:53
instead of activation fee
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:53 PM
i don't think i understnad the difference
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
can update the HIP to make those pieces less ambiguous
That would make it easier to debate the HIP, so that would be good. No time pressure this time, so that’s good too. I expect some vigorous debate about the slashing.
Avatar
Well for example, the IoT network has a 50 dollar activation fee. That made sense when devices were 500 dollars, but now they'll be 50 with light Hotspots, and that could reduce the number of deployments by having such a high fee. If you allowed the fee to be changed dynamically it could create a more resilient network.
Avatar
Also about counting FreedomFi gateways that are outside the US. I could see how some participants did not realize that was the meaning as written.
Avatar
Upon reflection there may be issues with that, I may need to think about it more.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
That would make it easier to debate the HIP, so that would be good. No time pressure this time, so that’s good too. I expect some vigorous debate about the slashing.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:55 PM
Na, just do a single case slashing for this HIP. That’s a whole other can of worms
Avatar
My issue with the total onboard fee vs. product is that the text says one thing, and the formula says something else. That’s a recipe for disagreement.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 1:57 PM
We wrote it in a weekend and Valerie didn’t let us merge any more PRs after the vote started
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
We wrote it in a weekend and Valerie didn’t let us merge any more PRs after the vote started
Of course not. But now there’s more time. 🙂
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
It's a masculine way to heart emoji
Ive got bad news doctor, his heart is jammed
🍓 3
😅 1
facepalm 1
🤣 1
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
I would pay people to write these HIPs instead of relying on volunteers
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 2:14 PM
God save the King! 😄 (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Well for example, the IoT network has a 50 dollar activation fee. That made sense when devices were 500 dollars, but now they'll be 50 with light Hotspots, and that could reduce the number of deployments by having such a high fee. If you allowed the fee to be changed dynamically it could create a more resilient network.
Low onboarding fees helps network buildout where cheap gateways are available. Charles Fayal (NOWI Sensors, water leak monitoring), brother of JMF, was contemplating writing his own HIP just to drop LoRa onboarding fees, so he could deploy gateways more cheaply at his leak sensing client sites. (Win-win-win if you ask me.) And those Wi-Fi gateways for MOBILE capcom has been talking about. That’s why I put a flat $5 onboarding fee in HIP-80 at first, and then changed that to a minimum after people screamed bloody murder. HIP-81 has that fancy minimum onboarding fee halvening schedule.
14:28
The A factor brings the countervailing incentive for subDAOs to charge high onboarding fees. That’s why I think we should get rid of the A factor. OTOH the A factor burns HNT by charging Hotspot operators a usage tax for onboarding to the Helium DAO. Which may or may not be the right thing to do, depending on your point of view. At any rate it’s a divisive issue. 😂
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
The A factor brings the countervailing incentive for subDAOs to charge high onboarding fees. That’s why I think we should get rid of the A factor. OTOH the A factor burns HNT by charging Hotspot operators a usage tax for onboarding to the Helium DAO. Which may or may not be the right thing to do, depending on your point of view. At any rate it’s a divisive issue. 😂
Well that may give you a great A factor to have arbitrarily high fees (which is 1/4 rooted) but if they're too high nobody would build a network thus keeping the other two scores low.
14:32
For me, I think the best thing to do is just build a foundational model and then run in different scenarios to see how it reacts. Maybe I'll do that later tonight.
Avatar
Kill the A factor, I say! Burn it with fire! 🔥 (Nothing like a sober discussion.)
👨‍🌾 1
👎 2
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Low onboarding fees helps network buildout where cheap gateways are available. Charles Fayal (NOWI Sensors, water leak monitoring), brother of JMF, was contemplating writing his own HIP just to drop LoRa onboarding fees, so he could deploy gateways more cheaply at his leak sensing client sites. (Win-win-win if you ask me.) And those Wi-Fi gateways for MOBILE capcom has been talking about. That’s why I put a flat $5 onboarding fee in HIP-80 at first, and then changed that to a minimum after people screamed bloody murder. HIP-81 has that fancy minimum onboarding fee halvening schedule.
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:33 PM
There are plenty of already onboarded gateways
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
There are plenty of already onboarded gateways
That is true but also not relevant. 😉
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:34 PM
Seems unnecessary. Especially considering there is likely already coverage there
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Seems unnecessary. Especially considering there is likely already coverage there
Where?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:35 PM
Wherever he plans on deploying them in the San Diego area
14:35
In fact, I’ll ship him free gateways
Avatar
Additionally, if all he cared about was connectivity he wouldn't need to pay the onboard fees and just run forwarding gateway
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:35 PM
How many does he need?
14:36
Hopefully his hosts that gamed Pollen don’t get a hold of them.
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
How many does he need?
Why don’t you ask him? Maybe he wants some of my CONTROLLINOs too. I must admit I don’t have complete knowledge of his plans.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:37 PM
There’s so much free hardware available right now, if his goal is connectivity for his devices (edited)
14:37
I’ll even pay the reassert fee myself
Avatar
All I know is that he wants to install new gateways. Shall we discuss conjectures about his motivations further? Seems a bit pointless TBH.
14:38
Waste of time even.
Avatar
I mean, it's the principle, high fees disincentives buildout I think is what he is trying to say
🍓 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:38 PM
No it doesn’t, ill cover the fees for him and send him free hardware
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
No it doesn’t, ill cover the fees for him and send him free hardware
I dunno, maybe he, like, doesn’t want your gateways? 🤣
Avatar
I mean in the cases where he want's connectivity he can just install forwarding gateways, PoC not required. i think that may be an edge case
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I dunno, maybe he, like, doesn’t want your gateways? 🤣
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:39 PM
Why not? What’s wrong with them? They are sitting in the box
14:40
If he wants a private network he should check out TTN
Avatar
So you would onboard them? Or he would?
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:40 PM
Seeed would onboard them
Avatar
My major concern though, is WiFi hotspots. I see WiFi as a DC Burning possibility, and if onboarding fees are too high there won't be anyone wanting to join
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:41 PM
Some came out of the box, we’re onboarded then placed back in the box, others were never even taken out of the box. He can have his choice
Avatar
For example, lets just say NOVA releases a module that anyone with a NETGEAR router can use.... Hardware already paid for.... High onboarding fees could hurt it.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
My major concern though, is WiFi hotspots. I see WiFi as a DC Burning possibility, and if onboarding fees are too high there won't be anyone wanting to join
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:42 PM
So a $100 gateway is a yes but a $110 gateway is a no?
Avatar
anything above 106.50 is a no, sorry
😅 1
😄 1
Avatar
I mean that's exactly what a high volume mfg would say
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:43 PM
But these are retail prices, not wholesale
Avatar
That's kinda why I think a Onboarding Fee Pool would be better than just an activation "fee" because a subDAO can dynamically change fees (edited)
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:44 PM
HIP-81 allows for dynamic pricing as soon as the engineering for it exists
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
For example, lets just say NOVA releases a module that anyone with a NETGEAR router can use.... Hardware already paid for.... High onboarding fees could hurt it.
Actually Nova is apparently developing a Wi-Fi gateway for MOBILE targeted at something like $100, that would provide Wi-Fi coverage to Helium Mobile customers. So that’s exactly it. Also, capcom said the goal would be something like 100x the number of deployed gateways compared to LoRa. That’s the sort of thing that benefits from low onboarding fees.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:44 PM
Which is august
14:45
$10
14:45
Really low onboard fee
14:45
It’s less than a month of Netflix
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
That's kinda why I think a Onboarding Fee Pool would be better than just an activation "fee" because a subDAO can dynamically change fees (edited)
There’s lots of ways to go about it. I say just kill the A score and drop the onboarding fee way down.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 2:46 PM
What about the devices that we don’t need that many and want to disincentivize their placement in bad locations? High onboard fee is good for that
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What about the devices that we don’t need that many and want to disincentivize their placement in bad locations? High onboard fee is good for that
So you’re going to make the onboarding fee low for Wi-Fi Hotspots for MOBILE when they are in a good location, and high when they are in a bad location?
14:47
If you make the fee really high, we’ll have extremely few Hotspots in bad locations. Problem solved!
🤔 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
There’s lots of ways to go about it. I say just kill the A score and drop the onboarding fee way down.
So that would effectively kill the IoT network without the A score and I'm not terribly fond of floors either. The A score honors the installed base of the IoT network without playing favorites
💯 1
👆 1
14:54
Lets be honest ferebee, without the A score the IoT network will be significantly harmed.
👆 1
14:55
It's fair because the A score will fairly treat all networks that have a large installed base. HIP80 just preferentially treated one.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Lets be honest ferebee, without the A score the IoT network will be significantly harmed.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 2:55 PM
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
So that would effectively kill the IoT network without the A score and I'm not terribly fond of floors either. The A score honors the installed base of the IoT network without playing favorites
Well, of course if you don’t have the advantage the A factor gives to the IOT network, due to the particulars of our current situation, you need to give it an advantage in a different way. If you want to give it an advantage. Which it needs, if it’s unable to hold its own based on DC Burn. The Floor in the formula of HIP-80 just makes it explicit. In the A factor, it’s implicit.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Lets be honest ferebee, without the A score the IoT network will be significantly harmed.
the A score is just being replaced with the floor numbers, this is the bargain and its a good deal to both mobile and helium
👎 2
Avatar
Well the problem is that the numbers derived from HIP80's DAO score are based on models that can be very wrong, while the A score is based on reality (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
It's fair because the A score will fairly treat all networks that have a large installed base. HIP80 just preferentially treated one.
If a network comes in that has a high A factor and actually burns DC, that will flatten IOT. Is that what we want? It’s debatable.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
If a network comes in that has a high A factor and actually burns DC, that will flatten IOT. Is that what we want? It’s debatable.
likely a DNS could achieve this and with the current formula it incentivizes it
Avatar
I personally do not want the IoT network to suffer, but I also don't want other "more performant" networks to have to foot the bill. unfortunately the DAO score is zero sum, so we have to figure out a way that's fair to everyone. Using preferential algorithms would be an act of bad faith towards all the other subDAOs
15:00
It seems to me that having a A score is a good compromise
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Well the problem is that the numbers derived from HIP80's DAO score are based on models that can be very wrong, while the A score is based on reality (edited)
we took a wide range of what could happen and had better outcomes in terms of total growth which I would think is the goal...
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I personally do not want the IoT network to suffer, but I also don't want other "more performant" networks to have to foot the bill. unfortunately the DAO score is zero sum, so we have to figure out a way that's fair to everyone. Using preferential algorithms would be an act of bad faith towards all the other subDAOs
The formula from HIP-51 has MOBILE subsidize IOT a bit. The formula from HIP-80 has MOBILE subsidize it a bit more. The numbers in HIP-80 are explicit, and can be tweaked, just like the A factor could be tweaked.
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:01 PM
IOT will always be the underdog for D simply based on its natural use of data (small packets). Anything like Mobile or Wifi is of course going to blow it out of the water unless the daos have a factor to even the playing field. (edited)
Avatar
How much should MOBILE subsidize IOT? Good question. Nobody seems willing to take a position on that. If they were, we could make it explicit.
Avatar
During the early days HIP80's DAO Score gave an additional ~12% to the MOBILE network but at the expense of years of subsidies down the road
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
How much should MOBILE subsidize IOT? Good question. Nobody seems willing to take a position on that. If they were, we could make it explicit.
hey I liked hip 80 but I am baised
Avatar
part of me still things this conversation should include a placeholder 3rd (or 4th, or 4th, etc) subDAO, if we focus so tightly on the two existing ones, we are just going to have to do this all over again each time a new subDAO attempts to join in right? (edited)
👍 2
Avatar
Yeah, we need to be forward thinking
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
IOT will always be the underdog for D simply based on its natural use of data (small packets). Anything like Mobile or Wifi is of course going to blow it out of the water unless the daos have a factor to even the playing field. (edited)
Well, of course. If both networks are mature, IOT will burn a lot of DC, and MOBILE lots more. With the formula from HIP-80, nobody subsidizes anybody then. MOBILE gets a subsidy until it hits $1,500/month burn. IOT gets a subsidy until it hits $50,000/month burn. Both are peanuts vs. what we are actually looking to achieve, so both are just a launch investment…
Avatar
BTW gutentag, I think most of us are on the same page with Ferebees suggestion converging HIP78 and 81.
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
part of me still things this conversation should include a placeholder 3rd (or 4th, or 4th, etc) subDAO, if we focus so tightly on the two existing ones, we are just going to have to do this all over again each time a new subDAO attempts to join in right? (edited)
yes IMO a new hip which will cover the terms of its joining like governance oversight, tokens, etc. and it will have to find its way to integrate and pass vote of entry
Avatar
What do you think?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
part of me still things this conversation should include a placeholder 3rd (or 4th, or 4th, etc) subDAO, if we focus so tightly on the two existing ones, we are just going to have to do this all over again each time a new subDAO attempts to join in right? (edited)
Well, HIP-80 treats all new subDAOs as if they are burning $1,500 from the start. (Which could be tweaked.)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, of course. If both networks are mature, IOT will burn a lot of DC, and MOBILE lots more. With the formula from HIP-80, nobody subsidizes anybody then. MOBILE gets a subsidy until it hits $1,500/month burn. IOT gets a subsidy until it hits $50,000/month burn. Both are peanuts vs. what we are actually looking to achieve, so both are just a launch investment…
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:04 PM
IOT is not mature enough to be handing off rewards to Mobile.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, of course. If both networks are mature, IOT will burn a lot of DC, and MOBILE lots more. With the formula from HIP-80, nobody subsidizes anybody then. MOBILE gets a subsidy until it hits $1,500/month burn. IOT gets a subsidy until it hits $50,000/month burn. Both are peanuts vs. what we are actually looking to achieve, so both are just a launch investment…
I find it hard to believe that the IoT network will be able to burn 46K USD a day for at least the next 36 months
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
IOT is not mature enough to be handing off rewards to Mobile.
agreed what IOT needs is time to and to have staying power what mobile is a low hanging fruit for growth
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I find it hard to believe that the IoT network will be able to burn 46K USD a day for at least the next 36 months
that's per month ...
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
agreed what IOT needs is time to and to have staying power what mobile is a low hanging fruit for growth
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:06 PM
Growth for who?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
IOT is not mature enough to be handing off rewards to Mobile.
Well, really the question is, does IOT have to have 97% of HNT, or can it get by on 85%? I think 85% should be fine, if it helps incentivize MOBILE, which should get the market excited enough to benefit IOT more than those 12%.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
that's per month ...
You're right. My mistake.
15:08
Even then. We're at 1400 a month right
15:08
now
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, really the question is, does IOT have to have 97% of HNT, or can it get by on 85%? I think 85% should be fine, if it helps incentivize MOBILE, which should get the market excited enough to benefit IOT more than those 12%.
And once MOBILE starts burning more, the formula in HIP-80 doesn’t take away much from IOT. At some point, it gives back. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Growth for who?
well hip 80 redistributed that in exchange for showing mobile to have better metrics it would then get a larger share if mobile really takes off
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Well, really the question is, does IOT have to have 97% of HNT, or can it get by on 85%? I think 85% should be fine, if it helps incentivize MOBILE, which should get the market excited enough to benefit IOT more than those 12%.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:09 PM
We're killing IOT in the crib and looting the corpse to pay for Mobile.
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
We're killing IOT in the crib and looting the corpse to pay for Mobile.
Are you serious? Going from 97% to 85% is “killing in the crib”? 🤪
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Are you serious? Going from 97% to 85% is “killing in the crib”? 🤪
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:10 PM
It's going to be a LOT more that just 12% taken from IOT
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
It's going to be a LOT more that just 12% taken from IOT
No it’s not. We’ve done lots of models. What’s yours that shows that?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
It's going to be a LOT more that just 12% taken from IOT
Do you mean using HIP51 model?
💯 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
No it’s not. We’ve done lots of models. What’s yours that shows that?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:11 PM
It's in 51
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
It's in 51
You mean once MOBILE is burning large amounts of DC? Well, of course. But that brings value to the DAO as a whole, which benefits IOT. Better a smaller share of a large pie than a big share of a tiny pie. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
You mean once MOBILE is burning large amounts of DC? Well, of course. But that brings value to the DAO as a whole, which benefits IOT. Better a smaller share of a large pie than a big share of a tiny pie. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:13 PM
20x in value only benefits large bag holders, which is what 51 was written by and for. 20x increase doesn't matter when IOT rewards go down 40x.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
You mean once MOBILE is burning large amounts of DC? Well, of course. But that brings value to the DAO as a whole, which benefits IOT. Better a smaller share of a large pie than a big share of a tiny pie. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
right growth for mobile grows the whole pie, so in those examples it actually getting more in total the problem we are also trying to aviod if the IOT goes under say 3% it might collapse even if the pie goes 10x or 20x
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
You mean once MOBILE is burning large amounts of DC? Well, of course. But that brings value to the DAO as a whole, which benefits IOT. Better a smaller share of a large pie than a big share of a tiny pie. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
Lets not forget that millions of HNT were emitted straight into the pockets of IoT Hotspot owners - if MOBILE takes off they win even if their emissions are reduced.
👍 2
Avatar
If we rely on IOT alone to drive the utility of HNT, we’re stuck in the doldrums for years. That’s the point of the DAO structure. If you think that as a whole is a bad idea, that’s a whole other discussion.
☝️ 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Lets not forget that millions of HNT were emitted straight into the pockets of IoT Hotspot owners - if MOBILE takes off they win even if their emissions are reduced.
correct his too
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Lets not forget that millions of HNT were emitted straight into the pockets of IoT Hotspot owners - if MOBILE takes off they win even if their emissions are reduced.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:15 PM
What millions? You mean for people that were in in 2020?
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
What millions? You mean for people that were in in 2020?
SRSLY if you believe taking MOBILE in to the LoRa Helium system was a bad idea, that’s a valid discussion to have, but I don’t think this is the right place for it.
15:17
And it’s a given now.
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/17/2023 3:20 PM
No that’s not what I meant
15:20
Gotta go though
👍 1
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
SRSLY if you believe taking MOBILE in to the LoRa Helium system was a bad idea, that’s a valid discussion to have, but I don’t think this is the right place for it.
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:21 PM
Mobile is the "Tom Brady stealing from welfare to build volleyball gyms for the wealthy" of Helium. You have a market. Stop taking from the developing IOT. Stand on your own. (edited)
Avatar
So it looks like there's a discussion to be had around the validity of the A score. Without it, the IoT network will likely die, and nobody can seem to agree on what a valid replacement could be
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
And it’s a given now.
true it was voted in, but let me ask @ElonTusk | 5Gchipped what do you think has more upside in the short term MOBILE or IOT? (3-12 months)
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
true it was voted in, but let me ask @ElonTusk | 5Gchipped what do you think has more upside in the short term MOBILE or IOT? (3-12 months)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:23 PM
Of course Mobile does. What kind of question is that?
Avatar
thinking short term is not great
👆 1
15:24
Broad response (gosh you all type fast) Special casing for IOT/MOBILE/any other subNetwork is "not ideal" is how I would put it. I see deep value in protecting a fledgling network, but the realities of data usage of wildly differing orders of magnitude and a key metric for comparison works against us here. IOT is supposed to be cheap, low data usage, MOBILE is supposed to be cheap, high data usage. What will the metric of data usage be on a CDN or distributed file serve subNetwork (edited)
😄 1
👆 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Broad response (gosh you all type fast) Special casing for IOT/MOBILE/any other subNetwork is "not ideal" is how I would put it. I see deep value in protecting a fledgling network, but the realities of data usage of wildly differing orders of magnitude and a key metric for comparison works against us here. IOT is supposed to be cheap, low data usage, MOBILE is supposed to be cheap, high data usage. What will the metric of data usage be on a CDN or distributed file serve subNetwork (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:24 PM
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
Broad response (gosh you all type fast) Special casing for IOT/MOBILE/any other subNetwork is "not ideal" is how I would put it. I see deep value in protecting a fledgling network, but the realities of data usage of wildly differing orders of magnitude and a key metric for comparison works against us here. IOT is supposed to be cheap, low data usage, MOBILE is supposed to be cheap, high data usage. What will the metric of data usage be on a CDN or distributed file serve subNetwork (edited)
The metric is DC burn. It's the golden metric
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Of course Mobile does. What kind of question is that?
ok which one do you think has more marketcap capacity IOT or mobile not meaning to be insulting im just trying to gauge perspective if you don't mind indulging (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
The metric is DC burn. It's the golden metric
exactly, problem is that one network (so far) will burn VASTLY more in "typical use"
👆 1
💯 1
🏆 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
The metric is DC burn. It's the golden metric
Okay, is that a bad thing?
unoreverse 1
Avatar
looks like you are debating yourself there sorry, was that aimed at me as well? 😁
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
looks like you are debating yourself there sorry, was that aimed at me as well? 😁
Is it a bad thing to reward a network that is creating scarcity for the Helium network? Isn't that the whole point of this thing?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
looks like you are debating yourself there sorry, was that aimed at me as well? 😁
lol yeah it was
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
ok which one do you think has more marketcap capacity IOT or mobile not meaning to be insulting im just trying to gauge perspective if you don't mind indulging (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:28 PM
Depends on what you're calling marketcap capacity.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Is it a bad thing to reward a network that is creating scarcity for the Helium network? Isn't that the whole point of this thing?
I guess I always worry about that being the goal becasue really it grows to ways, yes it becomes scarcer but also by growning its value
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I guess I always worry about that being the goal becasue really it grows to ways, yes it becomes scarcer but also by growning its value
Its value is driven by its scarcity and it's future scarcity.....
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Depends on what you're calling marketcap capacity.
I guess in simple terms if you had to take a stab what would you think the market caps of each will be in 5 years?
Avatar
Ultimately that's the metric we should be rewarding for.
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Is it a bad thing to reward a network that is creating scarcity for the Helium network? Isn't that the whole point of this thing?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:29 PM
It is if it's at the expense of the network that paid for Mobile to exist. There was a runway for IOT to mature. 51 chopped off that runway.
Avatar
One could argue if it will ever pay for it to exist.
Avatar
Avatar
gateholder
I guess in simple terms if you had to take a stab what would you think the market caps of each will be in 5 years?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:30 PM
The runway for IOT was 20 years...
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Is it a bad thing to reward a network that is creating scarcity for the Helium network? Isn't that the whole point of this thing?
sorry, i might be missing some context, scarcity of what exactly?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
sorry, i might be missing some context, scarcity of what exactly?
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:31 PM
I think he means supply/demand for HNT/DC (edited)
🙏 1
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
sorry, i might be missing some context, scarcity of what exactly?
The point of DC burn is to reduce max supply of HNT, if I think the HNT will become more scarce in the future I will buy HNT with that future expectation
Avatar
Carl-bot BOT 04/17/2023 3:31 PM
No discussions on buying or selling HNT please!
Avatar
I gotta go. Let me just leave y’all with one thought. Bull case LoRa: 1 billion sensors sending 1 packet every 5 minutes. That’s $1B DC Burn revenue/year. Bull case MOBILE: So Verizon does about $100B/year in total revenue in mobile. What if Helium captures a portion of that, running MVNOs all over the world and perhaps even its own MNO? Would $21B/year be too much, with millimeter wave and all the rest? Both are extreme bull cases. Either network could fail miserably. How many % of its own emissions is either network willing to give the other network pre-revenue in order to help it get off the ground? I’m risk-on. I’ll put quite a bit into risky investments, not the least of which is my engagement in Helium Hotspots and all the rest. Y’all risk-on, or risk-off? If you want to play it safe, what are you doing in crypto? GN…
👋 3
👍 4
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
The point of DC burn is to reduce max supply of HNT, if I think the HNT will become more scarce in the future I will buy HNT with that future expectation
well, in this perspective, yes. Burn-Mint equilibrium and all that good stuff
15:33
point of DC is to pay for data traffic, if you take a utility-focused view (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
I gotta go. Let me just leave y’all with one thought. Bull case LoRa: 1 billion sensors sending 1 packet every 5 minutes. That’s $1B DC Burn revenue/year. Bull case MOBILE: So Verizon does about $100B/year in total revenue in mobile. What if Helium captures a portion of that, running MVNOs all over the world and perhaps even its own MNO? Would $21B/year be too much, with millimeter wave and all the rest? Both are extreme bull cases. Either network could fail miserably. How many % of its own emissions is either network willing to give the other network pre-revenue in order to help it get off the ground? I’m risk-on. I’ll put quite a bit into risky investments, not the least of which is my engagement in Helium Hotspots and all the rest. Y’all risk-on, or risk-off? If you want to play it safe, what are you doing in crypto? GN…
Thank you for the thought provoking discussions today, look forward to more in the future
15:34
I'd like to point out that what we're effectively doing is what a market of veHNT stakers will be doing. Determining the value of said network, why do we think we can do it better than them?
Avatar
yea that makes sense
Avatar
I mean, there are plenty of people out there who love the IoT network I imagine people will stake for that reason alone... The DC burn floor that was introduced in HIP80 I'm opposed to, not just on principle but because I am concerned about the midterm projections of the MOBILE network.
15:37
Mainly, that we're looking down the barrel of another halvening next year
15:37
And that's right when the floors will kick in against the MOBILE ecosystem
15:38
Even if MOBILE is wildly successful next year, it's going to gather much less emissions than if HIP80 didn't exist. That could severely hinder expansion.
15:41
And since we all agree that the MOBILE network has the highest chance to burn DC, I think we all should tread lightly trying to create subsidies against it.
Avatar
this is a view I've never quite understood. the stance that MOBILE will stall without HNT, but then why did anyone start building now if that is the case?
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
this is a view I've never quite understood. the stance that MOBILE will stall without HNT, but then why did anyone start building now if that is the case?
Speculation has fueled it but that will only get us halfway there. it's partly why I don't care about the early 15% emissions that HIP80 promises, because it's really not needed. But mid-long term, there needs to be value generated for it
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
It is if it's at the expense of the network that paid for Mobile to exist. There was a runway for IOT to mature. 51 chopped off that runway.
Thx for keeping that fresh i everyone’s mind. I appreciate it. 👍
👍 1
Avatar
There are 4000 radios already purchased, waiting to be deployed. 15% in the early term is not necessary.
15:44
Actually I think theres more... but you get what I mean
Avatar
going to first state that i am not as up to date as you all for sure. but this has been my mental model of an "ideal case" scenario (also i had to lookup how to write LaTex again)
Avatar
lol latex. Just ask ChatGPT (edited)
😄 1
Avatar
mah queen
15:47
oh you fixed it 😆
Avatar
she a beautiful one I tell ya
Avatar
the "normal usage factor" would be, again for the sake of example, 1 for MOBILE and 1000 for IOT
Avatar
Avatar
gutentag
going to first state that i am not as up to date as you all for sure. but this has been my mental model of an "ideal case" scenario (also i had to lookup how to write LaTex again)
What does "normal usage factor" mean
Avatar
yea sorry not typing fast enough today
Avatar
What does that represent?
Avatar
and now that ive written it it might make sense to swap those values and divide instead of multiply
15:48
so its extremely abstract to be fair, just want to say that first
15:48
but the gist of it is "how much data does one normal event use"
👍 1
15:49
for an IOT sensor a "normal event" is 24 bytes for a Mobile device a "normal event" is however many mb a 5-minute youtube video is (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
okay so kinda like DC conversion?
Avatar
pretty much yea
15:49
probably too far gone, but i still wish IOT DC and MOBILE DC were different things
💯 1
Avatar
I gotta revist this guys, my wife is getting super pissed Ive been on the computer all day. i'll ttyl
👋 2
👍 1
😅 1
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I gotta revist this guys, my wife is getting super pissed Ive been on the computer all day. i'll ttyl
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:50 PM
Happy wife, happy life. Go go! 🙂
🍓 1
Avatar
get outta here with this strawberry 😆
😆 1
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 3:51 PM
🔥 1
🪰 1
Avatar
lol i was on vacation all last week so the wife wasnt to happy, but at least she got a few laughs out of the discussions
😄 1
Avatar
Avatar
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped
Click to see attachment 🖼️
firefly
💯 1
Avatar
also trying to use "happy spouse, happy house" more, lets not pretend we arent 💩's too
😅 2
👍 1
Avatar
I’ve been thinking about what a possible replacement to the HIP 51 formula would look like. What about something like this? subdao score = (A% + D%) * V% A% is the percent of all A that the subdao accounts for. So if IOT has $19m in A and mobile has $1m in A, IOT’s A% would be .95 while mobile’s would be .05. D% and V% would be calculated the same way. Absolute numbers in any of these factors don’t matter, only the percent of the total of that factor across all subdaos. So first off, we lump A and D together by summing them, but then we multiply that sum by V. There are no square or 4th roots, and there are no floors of any kind either. So a subdao’s three % values can be anything between 0 and 1. The reason I’m proposing adding A and D together is they both are resulting in burned HNT, but if we multiply them, we’re arbitrarily rewarding a subdao for having an equal distribution between the two. By adding them we’re basically saying it doesn’t really matter how the dc is getting burned, as long as it’s getting burned. We can’t sum all three (A + D + V) because that allows a useless subdao to come in and inflate only their V and still get paid. We obviously don’t want that. But I think (A + D) * V isn’t nearly as susceptible to gaming, because you need to have a decent value in at least two of the three factors before you start getting paid. But you also don’t need any floors, because neither a zero A nor a zero D will kill a subdao’s score on its own. (edited)
👍 1
15:55
I’d also throw out one additional wrinkle. We could add a weight to A and D that would apply to all subdaos equally. I don’t know what these weights should be, but having them would give us flexibility, because A and D aren’t exactly comparable. One is an upfront burn while the other is ongoing burn. Maybe we would decide that A should start out being weighted more (benefitting IOT in the short term), but then it could shift over time on a set schedule. For example if we started with a 60% weighting for A and 40% for D, the equation would be: Subdao score = (.6 * A% + .4 * D%) * V% But over time, as we want to value the D factor more and more, the D weight would go up while the A weight would go down. Maybe two years from now they’re 50 / 50 and another two years after that it’s 40 / 60 with D weighted more. There’s plenty to play around with, but I thought I’d throw the (A + D) * V idea out there.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I’d also throw out one additional wrinkle. We could add a weight to A and D that would apply to all subdaos equally. I don’t know what these weights should be, but having them would give us flexibility, because A and D aren’t exactly comparable. One is an upfront burn while the other is ongoing burn. Maybe we would decide that A should start out being weighted more (benefitting IOT in the short term), but then it could shift over time on a set schedule. For example if we started with a 60% weighting for A and 40% for D, the equation would be: Subdao score = (.6 * A% + .4 * D%) * V% But over time, as we want to value the D factor more and more, the D weight would go up while the A weight would go down. Maybe two years from now they’re 50 / 50 and another two years after that it’s 40 / 60 with D weighted more. There’s plenty to play around with, but I thought I’d throw the (A + D) * V idea out there.
Hmm I'll play around with it I build and model
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I’ve been thinking about what a possible replacement to the HIP 51 formula would look like. What about something like this? subdao score = (A% + D%) * V% A% is the percent of all A that the subdao accounts for. So if IOT has $19m in A and mobile has $1m in A, IOT’s A% would be .95 while mobile’s would be .05. D% and V% would be calculated the same way. Absolute numbers in any of these factors don’t matter, only the percent of the total of that factor across all subdaos. So first off, we lump A and D together by summing them, but then we multiply that sum by V. There are no square or 4th roots, and there are no floors of any kind either. So a subdao’s three % values can be anything between 0 and 1. The reason I’m proposing adding A and D together is they both are resulting in burned HNT, but if we multiply them, we’re arbitrarily rewarding a subdao for having an equal distribution between the two. By adding them we’re basically saying it doesn’t really matter how the dc is getting burned, as long as it’s getting burned. We can’t sum all three (A + D + V) because that allows a useless subdao to come in and inflate only their V and still get paid. We obviously don’t want that. But I think (A + D) * V isn’t nearly as susceptible to gaming, because you need to have a decent value in at least two of the three factors before you start getting paid. But you also don’t need any floors, because neither a zero A nor a zero D will kill a subdao’s score on its own. (edited)
There's a lot to process here but I like the outside the box thinking that it brings to the table. Give me some time to look over the details, but overall I'm happy people are bringing forward some fresh ideas.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I’ve been thinking about what a possible replacement to the HIP 51 formula would look like. What about something like this? subdao score = (A% + D%) * V% A% is the percent of all A that the subdao accounts for. So if IOT has $19m in A and mobile has $1m in A, IOT’s A% would be .95 while mobile’s would be .05. D% and V% would be calculated the same way. Absolute numbers in any of these factors don’t matter, only the percent of the total of that factor across all subdaos. So first off, we lump A and D together by summing them, but then we multiply that sum by V. There are no square or 4th roots, and there are no floors of any kind either. So a subdao’s three % values can be anything between 0 and 1. The reason I’m proposing adding A and D together is they both are resulting in burned HNT, but if we multiply them, we’re arbitrarily rewarding a subdao for having an equal distribution between the two. By adding them we’re basically saying it doesn’t really matter how the dc is getting burned, as long as it’s getting burned. We can’t sum all three (A + D + V) because that allows a useless subdao to come in and inflate only their V and still get paid. We obviously don’t want that. But I think (A + D) * V isn’t nearly as susceptible to gaming, because you need to have a decent value in at least two of the three factors before you start getting paid. But you also don’t need any floors, because neither a zero A nor a zero D will kill a subdao’s score on its own. (edited)
ElonTusk | 5Gchipped 04/17/2023 6:18 PM
In a two dao system, all the control is in V. That won't work.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I’ve been thinking about what a possible replacement to the HIP 51 formula would look like. What about something like this? subdao score = (A% + D%) * V% A% is the percent of all A that the subdao accounts for. So if IOT has $19m in A and mobile has $1m in A, IOT’s A% would be .95 while mobile’s would be .05. D% and V% would be calculated the same way. Absolute numbers in any of these factors don’t matter, only the percent of the total of that factor across all subdaos. So first off, we lump A and D together by summing them, but then we multiply that sum by V. There are no square or 4th roots, and there are no floors of any kind either. So a subdao’s three % values can be anything between 0 and 1. The reason I’m proposing adding A and D together is they both are resulting in burned HNT, but if we multiply them, we’re arbitrarily rewarding a subdao for having an equal distribution between the two. By adding them we’re basically saying it doesn’t really matter how the dc is getting burned, as long as it’s getting burned. We can’t sum all three (A + D + V) because that allows a useless subdao to come in and inflate only their V and still get paid. We obviously don’t want that. But I think (A + D) * V isn’t nearly as susceptible to gaming, because you need to have a decent value in at least two of the three factors before you start getting paid. But you also don’t need any floors, because neither a zero A nor a zero D will kill a subdao’s score on its own. (edited)
First of all, mad props to you for actually proposing a real, concrete idea. What a refreshing change from much of this discussion. 🤩 😘
Avatar
Question. You talk about A and D. These are defined in HIP-51. But it sounds like you are using A to mean “sum of all burned onboarding fees”, and D to mean “DC Burn per epoch”, is that correct?
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
What is a whale? Plenty of votes of over 100,000 HNT and even 500,000 HNT came through
nosmaster89 04/18/2023 3:08 AM
500k with a og you say... capcom pulling out his satoshi wallet 🤔
👀 1
😂 2
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Question. You talk about A and D. These are defined in HIP-51. But it sounds like you are using A to mean “sum of all burned onboarding fees”, and D to mean “DC Burn per epoch”, is that correct?
Yeah, this is assuming we have the issues with A resolved. Was purposefully avoiding going into the details, but something along the lines of an accurate sum of onboarding fees of all currently active hotspots. (edited)
03:16
And it’s also assuming Mobile has its onboarding issues resolved too.
Avatar
Sure, all good. I’d like to suggest you introduce a different notation, so we can discuss your suggestion vigorously independent of the vigorous discussions that have been going on about the formulas in HIP-51 and HIP-81. 😆
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
I’d also throw out one additional wrinkle. We could add a weight to A and D that would apply to all subdaos equally. I don’t know what these weights should be, but having them would give us flexibility, because A and D aren’t exactly comparable. One is an upfront burn while the other is ongoing burn. Maybe we would decide that A should start out being weighted more (benefitting IOT in the short term), but then it could shift over time on a set schedule. For example if we started with a 60% weighting for A and 40% for D, the equation would be: Subdao score = (.6 * A% + .4 * D%) * V% But over time, as we want to value the D factor more and more, the D weight would go up while the A weight would go down. Maybe two years from now they’re 50 / 50 and another two years after that it’s 40 / 60 with D weighted more. There’s plenty to play around with, but I thought I’d throw the (A + D) * V idea out there.
One thing I wanted to mention about these weight factors. (Which are just as arbitrary as the floor coefficients we introduced with HIP-80, of course. I think arbitrary numbers are perfectly reasonable in scenarios like this, so you get no pushback from me on that point.)
03:23
Changing this sort of coefficient later will be extremely difficult. The Floor coefficients in HIP-80 only affect the share emitted to subDAOs pre-revenue, because once a subDAO grows DC Burn above the Floor, it becomes unimportant. So the Floor coefficients are merely a subsidy to weak subDAOs, which we might grant out of solidarity. (If one subDAO is doing $millions of DC Burn per month, the emissions to another pre-revenue subDAO based on Floor are in the low to sub percent range.) The weight coefficients you propose would influence emissions over the entire lifetime of the subDAO, when both/all subDAOs are going gangbusters. Enriching one rich subDAO by taking from another rich subDAO, if you will. That is how wars start. (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Changing this sort of coefficient later will be extremely difficult. The Floor coefficients in HIP-80 only affect the share emitted to subDAOs pre-revenue, because once a subDAO grows DC Burn above the Floor, it becomes unimportant. So the Floor coefficients are merely a subsidy to weak subDAOs, which we might grant out of solidarity. (If one subDAO is doing $millions of DC Burn per month, the emissions to another pre-revenue subDAO based on Floor are in the low to sub percent range.) The weight coefficients you propose would influence emissions over the entire lifetime of the subDAO, when both/all subDAOs are going gangbusters. Enriching one rich subDAO by taking from another rich subDAO, if you will. That is how wars start. (edited)
Agreed. In an ideal world, we could have the weights defined over a schedule of time from the start. Kind of like how the HST emissions are predefined but decrease over time.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Agreed. In an ideal world, we could have the weights defined over a schedule of time from the start. Kind of like how the HST emissions are predefined but decrease over time.
I think that would be the only way.
Avatar
Unless we came to a consensus of a static number too. But definitely wouldn’t want them defined to one ratio with a vague plan to address a change later.
03:28
Personally I do like the idea of A starting out being weighed more but ending up ultimately with some ratio where D is weighed more. But obviously that is open to discussion.
Avatar
If you want to stick with A, maybe we can call that AM, or something? This can get confusing pretty fast otherwise. 😅
03:30
In any case, I continue to hold that any sort of factor that counts onboarding fees is creating counterproductive incentives. But I welcome your proposal and intend to investigate it more. 👍
Avatar
So just to get a feel for things, I’ve plugged your formula into the last model I did to compare HIP-80 with HIP-51. Please give it an eyeball to see if it looks right.
04:00
Avatar
Are you using any weighting for A and D?
Avatar
Some of the results seem surprising. I’ll readily admit that various scenarios are quite arbitrary. Happy to plug in other numbers.
Avatar
Avatar
mcharliem
Are you using any weighting for A and D?
No weighting.
Avatar
Like you said, the A vs D weighting is definitely arbitrary. But I think the rationale behind it is the understanding that in the early years, the D factor will be more unpredictable (i.e. volatile) and therefore should start out weighted less but gain weight over time. (edited)
Avatar
And no V factor, like it says. Nobody has a good handle on V yet.
04:08
I’ll just leave this here for now. Gotta tend to my day job… 😅 We’ll see what other input we get here.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
And no V factor, like it says. Nobody has a good handle on V yet.
You can't predict how the market will value a product that is currently being evaluated on future potential.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Click to see attachment 🖼️
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/18/2023 7:19 AM
Now just let everyone at the figures to view it, at a quick glance the story looks better for iot
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
Now just let everyone at the figures to view it, at a quick glance the story looks better for iot
Yeah, it looks like the A score is heavily valued in this equation over the others.
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io 04/18/2023 7:21 AM
I think the mobile jump of earnings is unrealistic but it's always good to check based on figures how my personal bias sees the next year or two with these equations
Avatar
Yeah, Mobile earnings is heavily speculative. I think it's best to try to keep the DAO score as fair as possible.
Avatar
Avatar
BFGNeil - Trackpac.io
I think the mobile jump of earnings is unrealistic but it's always good to check based on figures how my personal bias sees the next year or two with these equations
IMO at this point we are just going to have to wait to see where the score settle out then have discussions about it...
Avatar
We have till August 1st....
07:24
that on one hand seems like a lot of time and on the other not so much
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
that on one hand seems like a lot of time and on the other not so much
3.5 months is a blink of an eye but also an eternity, but I think we will have a good handle on when land rush is over how much VeHNT will roughly exist and also see the real trends of Data onboarding
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
We have till August 1st....
What happens then except everybody gets half the number of things?
Avatar
What do you mean?
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
What do you mean?
I was asking what you meant by your comment “We have till August 1st...”
Avatar
I mean I guess, currently MOBILE will be getting no emissions under HIP51.... But that won't change anything because it hasn't been getting any anyways.
07:32
I guess the Aug 1 deadline was predicated on if HIP 78+81 passes.
Avatar
Mostly, HIP-81 was going to slash missing fees from the MOBILE treasury if they weren’t paid by 1 August.
Avatar
Hmmm. That slashing thing kinda freaks me out. I hope that doesn't become a trend.
07:34
or set a precedent
07:34
I understand why it's being done though...
Avatar
HIP-78 proposed that the missing fees would be paid in one or more lump sums by “somebody” via Foundation, at which point MOBILE would start receiving regular emissions.
Avatar
Yeah, thats kinda a big sticking point
07:35
who's gonna pay?
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
I understand why it's being done though...
It’s not being done, though. HIP-81 didn’t pass, any more than HIP-80 did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Freaks me out too.
Avatar
everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
07:36
I should say I understand the reasoning behind it...
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
who's gonna pay?
In my understanding, the new workflow post HIP-70 (like, tomorrow) has separate onboarding operations for each Hotspot on each network. A lot comes down to “implementation”.
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
It’s not being done, though. HIP-81 didn’t pass, any more than HIP-80 did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Freaks me out too.
I have looked at a lot of different solutions but non do positive things most meh and negative, hip 80 really was the best choice but it is not the will of the people so we either have to wait and some minds will change or it just will go and what happens, happens
Avatar
HIP-53 in particular is sufficiently vague that there is room for multiple “alternative facts”. Foundation is doing the actual implementation, and all we’ve heard is that “we are ready to implement HIP-51”. We may be surprised.
07:41
For all we know they are cursing at any or all of us right now, and setting up a freak solution we never thought of.
Avatar
doubt it..
07:43
the cursing that is Troll
Avatar
For anyone seeing this for the first time, this HIP did not pass. We will archive this channel in 24 hours @Keenan . Please move any other HIP discussion to #hip-discussion (edited)
👍 1
Avatar
Moving over to HIP discussion....
Avatar
@valerie @Keenan (Foundation Admin) So far we’ve been having interesting conversations here on possible other alternatives to the DAO Utility Score, including a new proposal by @mcharliem. Do you think we could keep this channel open for a bit instead, until we see where that leads? (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
@valerie @Keenan (Foundation Admin) So far we’ve been having interesting conversations here on possible other alternatives to the DAO Utility Score, including a new proposal by @mcharliem. Do you think we could keep this channel open for a bit instead, until we see where that leads? (edited)
side thread of #hip-discussion an option?
Avatar
I would agree that this might dominate the discussion and make other ideas hard to find...
Avatar
Avatar
groot
side thread of #hip-discussion an option?
Sure, that’s a possibility. Side-threads tend to be a bit hard to find IMO, but maybe that’s just me.
Avatar
it would be 50 channels higher than hip80 though
Avatar
There is a certain muscle-memory associated with the HIP section. 😅
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams pinned a message to this channel. 04/18/2023 8:18 AM
Avatar
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/18/2023 8:19 AM
w!lock ?t c
Avatar
notallowed #hip-80-simplifying-dao-utility-score has been locked!
08:24
allowed #hip-80-simplifying-dao-utility-score has been unlocked!
Avatar
🤪 1
Avatar
Is this the official channel for discussion of changes to the DOA score? Im a bit confused
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Is this the official channel for discussion of changes to the DOA score? Im a bit confused
Let’s wait for guidance from valerie or Keenan…
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Is this the official channel for discussion of changes to the DOA score? Im a bit confused
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/18/2023 8:47 AM
Avatar
Avatar
ferebee
Let’s wait for guidance from valerie or Keenan…
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/18/2023 8:47 AM
Avatar
Avatar
Hans
Is this the official channel for discussion of changes to the DOA score? Im a bit confused
No soup for you! 😄 Let’s continue the discussion in a thread as groot suggested. https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1097914834210795620
😍 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/18/2023 9:35 AM
Oh cool, let’s lock the channels where people are talking
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
Oh cool, let’s lock the channels where people are talking
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/18/2023 9:44 AM
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/18/2023 9:45 AM
The last time it didn’t pass we kept it open
09:46
Weird
09:46
How dare we try to update HIPs I guess (edited)
Avatar
Avatar
Max - Just Max
The last time it didn’t pass we kept it open
Dumpling_girl | Beware of scams 04/18/2023 9:46 AM
New hip discussion in the #hip-discussion . If there is a new hip, will get new channel and hip number. (edited)
👆 1
Avatar
Max - Just Max 04/18/2023 9:47 AM
That seems like a ton of time and steps for a HIP that allegedly needed to pass ASAP
🤷‍♀️ 1
Avatar
Keenan (Foundation Admin) 04/18/2023 8:24 PM
Hi everyone, as this hip has been to vote and not passed, we will be locking this channel and directing you towards #hip-discussion to carry on talks, or the sub thread https://discord.com/channels/404106811252408320/1097914834210795620 Thank you! (edited)
20:26
w!lock ?t c
Avatar
notallowed #hip-80-simplifying-dao-utility-score has been locked!
Exported 6,889 message(s)